Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Christopher:

I did not mean or say for Mary to shut up! 

When i brought a new aspect into the discussion, i changed the subject to "USA dominion",
to structure the discussion.

I was just implying to Mary to do the same for her new aspect and
just wanted to stay on subject for sub thread i have opened.

I only did not want to do it myself
because i was already using up more than my fair share of bandwidth in this
thread as it is without opening yet another discuss point myself. 
I do agree wih what Mary and you are saying and i think it deserves
further considerations/discuss.

Maybe i am too anal on this subthreading by subject, but
a thread with hundreds of messages without any change in subject
(even though it covered several separate sub-topics) is just unnecessarily 
confusing to me. 

Of course, in the meantime i have just given up of expecting useful
structuring of the discuss into sub-topics after the one
i opened was primarily occupied by folks who wanted to
discuss the perfect use or prohibition of the use of "folk(s)".

That's all folks!
    Toerless

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:14:08PM +0000, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> (I've intentionally not been reading the several threads about the
> potential wording/vocabulary changes.. but I did read some of the
> thread, this particular jumped out at me)
> 
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:15 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 06:22:32PM -0500, Mary B wrote:
> > > You might also want to consider that it isn't just a US majority, it's a
> > > white male US majority, which is also an issue IMHO.   The same applies for
> > > WG chairs etc.  Indeed, I would posit that the lack of diversity when it
> > > comes to gender is also a huge issue with the organization.
> >
> > Lets stay on topic (or open another thread):
> >
> 
> I feel like this came off in a manner that Toerless didn't mean for it
> to... Like
> asking Mary to 'be quiet' (or some other similar version of that). I'm hopeful
> that this was not the aim of the remark.
> 
> I think Mary's point actually is on topic? Whether the part of
> 'diversity' you all
> are discussing is racial, gender or orientation. it's all the same
> sort of problem,
> the folk making decisions about the direction of the
> community/organization should
> be representative of both the local IETF community and the wider
> Internet community
> if possible. Taking measures to help ensure that seems like a reasonable action.
> 
> -chris