Hi Rich,
On 9/9/19 1:42 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"
So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?
You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me specific
examples of things
that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as less
so?
I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not
sure what A is.
If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for
newcomers then great.
If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming it
"toxic" or "harsh" or
"hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.
regards,
Dan.
