Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

https://cdt.org/insights/pushing-internet-standards-governing-body-ietf-to-tackle-discriminatory-and-exclusionary-terminology/ 
“helps ensure that white supremacy has no quarter”
a quarter of a century ago, PPP was the biggest issue facing the IESG. Now, it seems that that has been replaced by the KKK.

Progress?
Lloyd [e-mail]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 21:06, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Alissa,
At 02:22 PM 07-08-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Actually I'd like to suggest something different before anyone else 
>responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related 
>threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion 
>of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week. 
>The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be 
>further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As 
>I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic 
>does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let's give it a 
>rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the 
>GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.

There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the 
mailing list.  I could not find any message pertaining to that in the 
relevant mailing list archives.  What are the actions items?

I read a blog post published by the Center of Democracy and 
Technology about the draft.  Prior to that, I asked whether the draft 
was about etymology and the response was that it was about 
"power".  I could not find that listed as an objective or 
non-objective in the slides.

Would the email discussion be better if it was structured and managed?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy