> On 14 Apr 2021, at 19:41, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. We’ve had such a programme for many years for IRTF ANRW, and had a travel grant programme ready to announce for some other areas of IRTF, but then the pandemic hit, and travel stopped. We’re happy to accept future sponsors for such grants, to broaden the scope of the programme, for when the in-person meetings resume. Jason has mentioned activities on the IETF side. -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
