> What specifically do you think we should do to have
sufficient diversity for deciding on IETF document language evolution ?
We don't have to "solve" all the problems. We should address known issues. And then, when language changes, or another group comes up and says "this is hurtful/eclusionary" we should continue the process.
Based on your postings, I have come to the conclusion that you seem to think that, ideally, this is a one-time thing: We fix a few words and then we're done. I don't see it that way. We start a process, and address those terms we know about.
> What does it say about the self proclaimed inclusiveness goal of the
IETF if it does imvolve 70% or more USA centric contributors ?
I don't know, but that's kind of a leading question. I'll answer similarly: if the first part of the process is done by mostly US contributors, that's could be okay because it is mostly US contributors that have used words we now want to avoid, and who seem to be in the most civil unrest over it. Put another way, "look those folks over there are getting rid of problematic terminology, maybe I can mention some words that hurt" It is up to the privilege to provide a "safe space" for others. I speak from experience on that.
