> Il 01/04/2021 20:10 Lars Eggert <chair@xxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > > On 2021-4-1, at 11:15, lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A contribution had been made to the work of > > the Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (TERM) > > mailing list. > > The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) members are saddened to see individual participants subvert the efforts of the IETF to live up to its full potential as an open organization that lets participants from all backgrounds collaborate on building a better Internet. > > Sarcasm and an "April Fool's" posting date do not detract from the underlying message this document sends - that ongoing efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in nature. > > Participants in the IETF agree to a code of conduct [1], to create and maintain an environment in which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect. This document not only disrespects the IETF participants that work towards more openness, it also can signal to currently underrepresented groups that their participation is not desired. This is harmful to the organization. > > While couched as a joke, this does not change the fact that it is not in alignment with our code of conduct. While in the spirit of openness and the quest for technical excellence, contributions of diverse opinions are encouraged, they need to be done in accordance with the code of conduct, respecting the other individuals and opinions in the discussion. I am trying to make up my mind on this, so could you please clarify the following: what did you judge to be in violation of the code of conduct, the substance, the tone or the method (or all of them)? In other words: is holding or expressing the opinion that "ongoing efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in nature" a violation of the code of conduct? Or is it the fact that this opinion was expressed through a (mildly) satyrical text, rather than straightforwardly? Or is it the fact that the text was posted through the Internet draft process? Thank you in advance for the clarification. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
