judging by the subject line, you may not have intended to send this to the list in its current form, and I'm a bit puzzled as to who you're asking permission of. Do you want that particular mail to be disregarded?
(as previously noted, when you hear 'folks', prepare to be patronised by an American. it's a trigger word... language matters!)
Lloyd Wood
Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Saturday, September 22, 2018, 3:46 am, Mallory Knodel <mallory@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
New co-chair of HRPC here.
First, I'd like to thank folks who are defending the existence of our
research group. And I'd like to deeply appreciate those throughout this
long thread here, and in HRPC, who are reading and responding, even
though talking about personal and social issues of oppression can be
emotionally taxing. I know that I am emotionally exhausted by it.
I couldn't agree more with everything that Avri said.
For my contribution in this thread, I want to address Eliot Lear,
> the co-chair has attempted to stifle debate
I will admit that based on my experience and expertise that I disagree
with nearly everything that he has said in this discussion. But it has
not been my intention to "stifle debate".
In one response I wrote,
> I'm going to stop you right there.
Of course I didn't actually stop him as he had pre-synchronously written
his message. I also didn't stop him from writing subsequent messages nor
did I want to. Apologies, Eliot. It was nothing more than a debate
gimmick and turn of phrase, but language matters! I won't use it again.
I've drafted a document to collect the various arguments and elements.
Some of which Neils has just shared back to the thread at Alissa's
suggestion. I hope to share that soon.
This debate, at least in part, might be new to the IETF but it is not
new to communities of technologists. I've been part of some of these
communities and I'm glad the debate is happening here, as difficult as
it might be.
With thanks,
-Mallory
On 21/09/2018 17:10, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> Paul
>
> "The arguments so far (from you and John Levine) have been
> that since HRPC didn’t attain world peace and
> universal human rights, it should be closed down."
>
> I can see where John suggested that.
>
> But where did I suggest or endorse that idea?
>
> I suspect you're confusing skepticism for stifling dissent.
> And that you're confusing me with Eliot Lear.
>
> (on my mail agent behaviour, I'm suspecting the mail agent.)
>
> L.
>
> Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* "ietf@xxxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Friday, 21 September 2018, 23:38
> *Subject:* Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive
> terminology in RFCs
>
>
>
>> On Sep 21, 2018, at 07:01, Lloyd Wood
> <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Niels,
>>
>> you are surprised about this conversation here and now on HPRC,
>> despite you being the very person who initiated this conversation
>> introducing the topic of HPRC to the main list?
>
> Niels introduced a topic from HPRC that he thought warranted discussion
> outside of HPRC. Since HPRC per definition is about ALL of IETF
> considering the impact of IETF protocols on human rights, that is
> appropriate and expected output of the group.
>
> What Niels was surprised about was some people’s reaction to close down
> HPRC, and I concur with Niels’ surprise. The arguments so far (from you
> and John Levine) have been that since HRPC didn’t attain world peace and
> universal human rights, it should be closed down. It fails to understand
> the groups goal. If that kind of measuring is used, the Security Area
> and IPv6 groups should have been closed down years ago.
>
>> And you complain
>> about someone expressing a contrary and dissenting position while
>> emailing from **digitaldissidents**..org? Irony much?
>
> Niels is not complaining, you are. And this attack doesn’t belong on
> this list.
>
>> (I'd also like to know why my replies to you aren't cc'ing the
>> list by default; that does look like an attempt to stifle debate,
>> but I don't see the expected Reply-To: in headers.)
>
> And now you seem to imply the ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> list
> settings are somehow Niels’ fault. If you want to complain about these,
> a new thread devoid of HRPC discussion, just discussions this
> particular’s list settings would be the appropriate way to raise this as
> an issue to discuss..
>
>
>> remember: social justice warriors have never been to war.
>
>
> You are trying to prove that you “mastered” flame baiting?
>
> I guess if anything, you showed that IETF has a lot of work to do to
> become more inclusive and considerate, and if we really need to discuss
> whether HRPC should be closed down or not (I don’t think we do) than
> your behavior shows the need to keep it open.
>
> Paul
>
>
--
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
