Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 23 February 2021 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A543A2B34; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:37:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6EWZB5_KgQ0t; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E6F3A2B31; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 05:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id E871EBE24; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:12 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftHWQzZceuiC; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.242] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3436FBE1C; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1614087431; bh=yK/SJeaQbejHpoFDYHwVSU4MtRsaKqs6PGgE8Yd2snU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EaeznEgoV5xMPHI91qM16X4BDr99Le39mGPOsGYUj7KCu0Aj68wt5nnxuXl+kESMd SENgO4/9IW/Fedln++vchnW+lAL0iMothAP8rnbhfMAuuVIZ2GOa7P0AfkeY0H8UaS HVpe91lL4D+BpHLiRV+CNdo6Qcs9zevASebmmq+o=
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
To: Dominique Lazanski <dml@lastpresslabel.com>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, ietf@ietf.org, gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <3c2d646d-f18d-4d88-b458-29dbd486432b@beta.fastmail.com> <446A8D6B-E624-49E0-B67E-D1F8AFC794E2@lastpresslabel.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <5d660988-09ef-66c0-0d30-08a119e663ed@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <446A8D6B-E624-49E0-B67E-D1F8AFC794E2@lastpresslabel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GKeh0DyWoXEr8tpichLsYpjtFNyiJQBdx"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VGxz5-hlsBrSHjUCn1MOTB7M21A>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:18 -0000

Hiya,

On 23/02/2021 08:18, Dominique Lazanski wrote:
> One is different approaches to topics than the mainstream IETF
> approach held by most IETF attendees. 
> I am thinking about privacy/encryption...
That topic differs from others in this discussion
in that the IETF has repeatedly debated it in lots
of detail, and with many different opinions being
factored in, and over decades, and has established a
set of rough consensus positions after significant
informed debate on a topic where IETF participants
are pretty well qualified to claim expertise.

Other aspects of this discussion relate to things
where we've not really noticed that we even have a
position, e.g. the use of terms that were considered
ok in the past, but aren't today, or where we're not
at all expert, e.g. handling our own biases.

I think our approach to handling claims that we'd
be better to change should validly differ in the
above two cases - it is *much* harder to bring
really new information in the former case than in
the latter for example.

Cheers,
S.