|
Ted, On 5/23/16 10:31 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
You have, however inadvertently, taken a single sentence out of context and distorted the meaning of my message. I wrote in that same message: Quite frankly barring a location itself is a form of exclusion, especially when taking into account economics. It may be an appropriate exclusion if going there means that many others would be excluded. Kathleen and Suresh, and later Dave and Narelle, have made clear that diversity/inclusiveness is a broad notion. Gender, sexual preference, and nationality are all listed in Fred's draft, as is religion. {...} And this: What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to new members because of their governments' laws. They need to be considered in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have not been, and often aren't. That is particularly problematic because it risks the future of this organization, which isn't growing very quickly, to begin with. And so, it's a matter of who we decide to exclude, and the impact that will have on the future of this organization. The only question is whether we will make those decisions consciously and conscientiously or not. Based on the criteria discussed up thread, if you seek such a rigid standard, you will exclude fair access to engineers from some of the largest and most populous countries on the planet, including India, China, most of Japan, and by the way South Korea, all but one of those places we have already visited. These people are not simply going to evaporate if we don't accept their participation, but rather they will find other avenues to acceptance of their work. At the same time, critics will say that the IETF is a western endeavor that promotes only western values and not a truly international organization. This, itself, is a form of fragmenting of the Internet. Eliot |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature