On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:02 PM Jim Fenton <fenton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2021, at 10:33, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 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.
The question I keep asking myself (and I don’t have an answer) is
whether by focusing on terminology in this way we are distracting
ourselves from making more meaningful efforts to make IETF more
inclusive. I don’t know what those more meaningful efforts might be,
but I hope we’re addressing the big problems first.
I am most interested in meaningful changes that help people come and participate. I don't know if changing or updating terminology will help, hinder or be neutral in that cause. I guess it's worth a shot.
My (anecdotal) experience was that culture was the central and most impactful obstacle to participating within the IETF versus any content of a pre-existing documentation. For example, when I read a draft or RFC (others may disagree), I am absorbing technical content and associate things I read, including words, to assisting in describing the technology, method or principle. On the other hand, when someone engages, in-person or via email, I see that as a reflection of them communicating and of their personal resolve. How we communicate with each other, as a unit, helps define our culture.
I think addressing culture, IMO, would likely result in more meaningful ways to drive inclusion.
regards,
Victor K
-Jim
