> You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
Not just me. Judging solely by traffic on this list it seems to me that many people feel this way. That's not necessarily an accurate measurement, admittedly. I can add impressions I have from co-presenting the newcomer's tutorial multiple times over the past few years.
> 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 hesitate to do so as it's only my perspective, and my perspective is further narrowed by the small focus of my involvement. (For example, I rarely venture outside of the Security area.) But if pressed, I will do so.
> I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not
sure what A is.
In the context of the thread(s) of discussion here, I would have thought it was obvious.
> 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.
How about "self awareness" or "self restraint" at times?
