[Terminology] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 08 April 2021 12:16 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: term-chairs@ietf.org, terminology@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161788420982.31539.6591322651294236147@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 05:16:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/woxac8D8QbypCTjK9ZTg5sVgYWg>
Subject: [Terminology] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of Ben's and Warren's points.

Inclusion is not a yes/no proposition; it is a never-ending and always-changing
road.  With that in mind, the focus should not be on "inclusive terminology"
but on it being non-exclusionary.

"The principles should match the expectations from a diverse set of IETF
participants."  Even though we've seen support for this effort, I am concerned
that it won't necessarily translate into participation and contribution,
especially from a "diverse set of participants."  This task won't be easy; the
diverse composition of the WG should be an absolute requirement.

[Terminology] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on cha… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker