As I said, I don't think it's really necessary to unpack this, and I don't believe it will be productive to engage with you on this topic in this venue. I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions about whether your characterization was in good faith.
-Ekr
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 4:25 PM Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/2/22 4:02 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 3:49 PM Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But in many ways, none of that is really applicable here. Once we reach
a point that someone's reaction to the Executive Director of the IETF
asking for community input on in-person meetings is to respond with a
hostile mini-rant about a tenuously related tweet that he found
elsewhere,Not that it actually changes the situation, but as it happens, the
mini-rant in question arguably misrepresents, the tweet, whichreads:
.@MaraGay "Masking remains an act of solidarity & respect for
vulnerable people, that includes people w/ disabilities, w/ chronic
conditions like asthma, as well as for hard-hit communities like
native & black communities especially, Hispanic communities"
In the email you are referring to, this was characterized as:
Well the other thing to keep in mind about masking is that "it remains an
act of solidarity & respect" for... BIPOC (natch).
I don't think it's really necessary to unpack this, but suffice
to say, this doesn't seem like a particularly good-faith reading
of the tweet in question (whether you agree with said tweet or
not).
OK Eric, what was bad-faith in that characterization? She was
including black, indigenous, and hispanic communties in her
listing of "vulnerable people" . Is that not BIPOC?
Dan.
-- "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
