[Ietf-lac] Fwd: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
fernando at gont.com.ar
Thu Feb 25 18:38:45 -03 2021
"La gente en IETF contribuye como individuos"
Bueno,... parece que no tanto... a tal punto que parece que las
empresas, mayoritariamente de USA, pueden imponer su agenda respecto de
como se puede hablar, y como no....
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:06:05 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>
To: gendispatch at ietf.org
On 2/25/21 12:58 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> The main problem that I, personally, see driving a need for the TERM WG is that many companies (mostly from one region) have told their employees not to use certain terms in any document or code they are associated with. Given the momentum of this movement and speed at which it is spreading to many of the companies employing IETF participants, if IETF does not address the problem ASAP, this could make it difficult for employees of these companies to actively participate. This will primarily impact a specific region/country and people employed by large companies in that region and would be independent of the race, culture, or gender of the participants.
I'm not following this. Are you saying that IETF will be expected to
bring its notion of acceptable vocabulary in line with those of some
large companies that are mostly from one region so that those companies'
employees are not at risk of violating their employers' policies if they
participate in IETF? Or are you saying that document authors/editors
who work for such companies will be constrained by IETF to violate their
employers' policies if IETF doesn't adopt its own policy (which might be
different from the policies of those companies)?
Given that we're all supposed to be participating in IETF as
individuals, do those companies also constrain what their employees can
write on their own time?
I guess I don't see a TERM document forcing anyone to use any particular
terminology (at least, I hope it doesn't) so much as saying "try to
avoid these specific terms unless there's a good reason to do so". And
that seems Mostly Harmless to me and may create some good will. But
if IETF has to align its rules with those of Big Companies Mostly From
One Region, I consider that extremely problematic.
Gendispatch mailing list
Gendispatch at ietf.org
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
More information about the Ietf-lac