Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think it's clear we can do better here. This doesn't mean we can resolve it all at once, but we can improve the quality of the products we produce. WG docs, WG last call and IETF last call provide many venues for us to audit our work and improve it. 

Let's focus on that, and as other said allow the IESG and RSE perform their roles to ensure the quality we aspire to. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On 7/24/20, 8:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of Lars Eggert" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
> 
>    I've been reading this thread, and don't understand how this IESG statement is controversial.





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux