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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/25/20 10:58 AM, Kyle Rose wrote:

> The IETF does have an inclusion problem, but I suspect it has very 
> little to do with problematic technical jargon and a lot more to do 
> with the all-too-frequent bullying, mocking, and dismissal that seem 
> to be standard operating procedure for a small but vocal minority of 
> the community.

That statement could be credibly read in at least two ways:

1. the small but vocal minority of the community that claims the 
authority to bully people whom that small but vocal minority sees as 
being on the fringes

2. the small but vocal minority of the community that is on the fringes 
whom are seen as bullying others merely because they have different 
opinions (which they express even though they are different, and don't 
readily cave in to pressure from others)

Even in this particular discussion, which to me looks like it has been 
relatively respectful, there are signs that it really bothers some 
people that other people have different opinions, as if everyone should 
somehow agree with a vocal minority of people /merely because that 
minority believes it has good intentions/.

To me, part of what inclusion looks like is /respectful tolerance of 
differing views //even though some of those views make some people 
uncomfortable/.   I want to suggest that people being immediately 
comfortable isn't an appropriate goal, because it always makes some 
people uncomfortable that there are multiple valid perspectives on a 
subject.  Instead, the community needs to cultivate a willingness to be 
uncomfortable when it is done in the service of accommodating different 
views and building rough consensus.

Keith