On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:33:45PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > Here is what I take from those comments, Bron: > There is indeed no societal consensus on how terminology is should be > used. > We simply cannot stop at terminology when we address inclusiveness. > It’s a VERY small component in an overall strategy. > What does this mean to the IETF? I don’t think it means “stop doing > TERM”. Rather I think it means that we should work on the other > aspects. We should make it easy and fun to be here. And mostly it is > fun (of course I’m biased), but sometimes it’s not easy. Well, if we paid attention to practical proposals by participants who most have a need for them, we'd have IETF sponsors and/or ISOC providing sponsorships to participants from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or countries. E.g., see Fernando's commentary. But you know, the response to that so far has been CRICKETS. To pursue terminology changes with such fervor -changes that we can easily find supposed beneficiaries scoffing at as patronizing and useless- and sponsorships not at all serves only to underline our actual and hypocritical lack of interest in actually achieving something. J'accuse, Nico --
