On 9/9/19 4:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more inclusivity. You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I misunderstand you?
You misunderstand me. I do not object to trying to be more inclusive,
but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined constraints
on IETF contributions.
I am sorry if I was not clear. I am saying "we are choosing to do A in order to get B" You are saying "I want B without A"
I don't think that's what I'm saying. I think I am instead saying: "I
have serious doubts, from what little detail I've seen, that A is a good
idea, or that it will help us to get to B. It seems to have lots of
potential for harm to IETF and its ability to actually reach consensus
(as opposed to claiming consensus). It would help to have more detail
about what A actually is, the mechanisms for implementing it, and
transparency and accountability for those implementing it. I also
don't think that this is something that is appropriate for leadership to
impose in the absence of community consensus."
But I'm working on a concrete proposal. Call it A-prime if you want.
Keith
p.s. Also, you seem to assume that A is now commonly accepted. I'm not
sure about that, and I'm also fairly sure that some constraints that
people now seem to want to impose on speech in contexts other than IETF,
do great harm. But again, without a more specific description of A,
it's hard to tell.
