Hi, Disregard the subject, please. But the rest of the message was meant to land in your inboxes and the ietf@ archives. -Mallory On 22/09/2018 02:55, lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Mallory, > > > 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@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 <mailto:lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx> > http://about.me/lloydwood ; > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxx>> > > *To:* Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx>> > > *Cc:* "ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>" <ietf@xxxxxxxx > <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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 > > -- Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
