►
From YouTube: GENDISPATCH WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-07
Description
GENDISPATCH WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-07
A
A
A
A
The
discussion
itself
should
be
kept
on
the
content
along
the
lines
of
you
know:
what
are
what
should
the
ietf
work
on
and
if
so,
where
that
work
should
take
place,
we're
not
trying
to
solve
the
problem
that
each
of
the
documents
proposes,
we're
simply
trying
to
decide
how
to
dispatch
it.
That's
the
big
issue
here.
A
A
A
Oh
by
the
way,
francesca
is
being
our
minute
taker
for
the
meeting.
Thank
you
francesca,
but
if
you
would
stay
in
cody
md
and
help
her
by
clarifying
what
you
said
clarifying
what
you
heard,
others
say
the
more
the
merrier
as
far
as
adding
to
the
discussion
on
the
cody
md
page,
for
when
we
do
the
minute,
so
that
would
be
very
helpful
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
summary,
I
did
for
last
meeting
that
I
posted
to
the
gen
dispatch
list.
A
That
would
probably
be
useful
to
your
understanding
of
what's
going
on,
but
we
did
have
a
sense
for
a
couple
of
things
where
the
outcome
of
that
discussion
got
to
we'd
like
to
clarify
some
of
those
moving
forward.
We
want
to
understand
we.
We
got
a
sense
of
the
room,
the
first
time
that
people
started
from.
Oh,
I
think
an
ad
sponsor
document
would
be
good
but
seem
to
be
shifting
toward
either
above
or
even
a
little
more
support
for
some
sort
of
short
working
group.
A
C
A
C
C
D
C
I
have
not
updated
my
draft
because
everyone
said
they
weren't
going
to
update
their
draft.
I'm
fully
aware
that
the
security
considerations
section
in
particular
needs
to
be
resolved,
but
also,
I
would
like
to
find
the
consensus
between
all
three
of
us
for
a
final
draft,
because
I
think
the
ietf
needs
a
consensus
draft,
not
a
special
interest
draft
in
this
area.
So
I'd
love
to
work
on
consensus
with
everybody.
C
C
E
E
E
E
Yeah
something
like
that,
and
I
don't
have
it-
I
haven't
tried
to
draft
text
or
anything,
but
that's
kind
of
what
over
the
last
week
that
I've
been
thinking
would
be
a
good
result
rather
than
taking
any
of
the
existing
internet
drafts
and
using
that
as
the
basis
for
something
we
can.
We
could
glean
material
from
those
where
appropriate,
but
I
think
part
of
what
what's
attractive
to
me
about
using
the
page
is,
I
think
it
really
is
where
you
want
to
focus
the
attention
and
the
other
thing
is,
I
think
it.
E
A
Okay,
if
and
by
the
way,
since
not
everybody,
has
their
video
on
all
the
same
time,
which
is
a
fine
plan
by
the
way
feel
free
to
do
your
head
nodding
in
either
of
the
chat
rooms,
so
that
francesca
and
I
can
kind
of
see
if
there
is
head
nodding.
If
all
you
want
to
do,
is
a
plus
one
go
ahead
and
do
that
john?
You
are
up
next.
A
F
I
think
it's
clear
from
both
the
discussions
and
the
three
documents
that
the
more
we
go
in
that
direction.
The
further
we
dig
ourselves
here
or
dig
ourselves
down
and
and
and
principles
about
what
you
do
when
you
find
yourself
in
the
bottom
of
a
hole
holding
a
shovel
is,
are
probably
relevant
here.
F
So
I
want
to
repeat
my
argument
in
a
little
different
way
that
I
made
when
this
discussion
started,
which
is
some
guidance
that
these
are
sensitive,
important
and
important
issues
and
reviewing
drafts
is
useful.
I
don't
think
that
needs
to
be
terribly
formalized
and
and
encouraging
people
at
every
point
of
of
the
review
of
a
document,
starting
from
when
it's
first
posted
to
go
to
the
authors
and
say
this
language
needs
tuning
from
this
particular
standpoint.
F
Of
my
cultural
environment,
wherever
I
happen
to
be
is,
is
is
necessary
and
sufficient
if
a
document
gets
to
a
working
class
call
or
an
iatf
last
call,
and
the
authors
have
been
told
that
not
gotten
the
message.
I
think
it's
entirely
appropriate
to
say
that
more
loudly,
but
by
trying
to
make
lists
of
strings
which
don't
work
and
with
the
implication
that,
if
something
doesn't
work,
we
need
to
go
through
some
procedure.
To
add
it
to.
A
Thanks
thanks
and
I
and
feel
free
for
any
of
you
to
jump
back
in
one
question
that
francesca-
and
I
still
have
is
the:
where
should
work
take
place
question?
Is
there
work
to
be
done
for
simply
an
80
sponsored
document
to
describe
all
this,
or
do
we
need
a
quick
working
group
or
what
the
you
know
what
the
dispatch
of
this
will
be
andrew?
You
were
next
in
the
queue.
G
G
But
then
I
guess
many
of
us
would
have
seen
the
publication
in
the
last
week
or
so
of
rfc
8890,
which
I,
which
is
about
the
internet,
is
for
users.
I
think
there
are
some
parallels
with
that
potentially
here
in
that
I
think,
a
document
which
sort
of
sets
out
that
material
published
by
the
itf
should
use
inclusive
language
yeah.
G
G
G
B
C
C
I
found
I
found
my
good
camera.
I
no
longer
look
quite
so
beautiful,
but
you
know
you
can
see
me
more
clearly.
I
I
actually
tried
to
put
myself
in
the
queue
directly
after
keith
to
say.
Yes,
I
agree
that
working
on
something
like
the
github
resource,
not
necessarily
github,
seems
like
the
right
place.
C
F
I
I
just
wanted
to
very
briefly
follow
up
with
one
with
one
aspect
of
your
comment:
pete,
while
mostly
agreeing
with
the
last
two
speakers,
one
of
the
options
we
have
to
have
in
our
list
of
possibilities,
as
a
working
group
is
none
of
the
above
or
to
put
that
differently,
rather
than,
rather
than
only
having
the
options
of
where
we
dispatch
this
to.
There
needs
to
be
an
option
of
saying
we're
done.
Let's
move
on.
A
F
I'm
I'm
I'm
saying
that
having
spent
one
and
a
quarter
meetings
on
this
and
more
email
messages
than
I
care
to
count,
it
is
not
a
foregone
conclusion
that
the
output
of
this
dispatching
process
needs
to
be
more
meetings
and
more
documents
and
moral
discussion
on
the
working
list.
Okay
list,
I
think
there
has
to
be
somewhere
there,
an
option
which
says
it
was
a
good
idea
to
have
this
discussion.
F
A
H
H
Sorry
about
that
I
have
a
question
for
for
braun
and
keith,
and
that
is
if
there
is
going
to
be
a
github
page
which
I'm
skeptical
about,
but
you
know
wait.
What
kind
of
thing
are
you
envisioning
there?
Is
it
a
list
of
suggested
positive?
You
know,
you
know
this
is
a
good
idea
to
use
for
terminology
for
this
case
or
or
what
exactly
are
you
seeing
there,
as
as
a
as
the
as
the
useful
you
know,
content
of
such
of
such
a
resource.
C
E
Keith
yeah,
I
think
when
I'm
referring
to
the
github
page,
I'm
talking
about
the
current
the
page.
That's
currently
hosted
on
github,
just
in
case
that
was
ambigu
ambiguous.
I
don't
think
it
should
stay
on
github.
I
just
think
that
the
text
in
that
page
is
a
decent
starting
point
and
I
then
I
may
have
forgotten
the
question
in
the
so
the.
H
E
These
are
all
advisory
and
suggestions,
not
any
kind
of
sort
of
mandatory
substitution
or
even
forbidden
words.
It's
more
like
someone
said
last
week,
use
them
with
caution.
That's
close
to
what
I
have
in
mind.
I
think,
if
you're
using
one
of
these
words,
maybe
you
should
think
about
it
and
the
trick
will
be
to
making
that
very
clear,
because
there
will
always
be
some
people
who
want
to
insist.
E
E
I
All
right
hi,
so
I
the
web,
the
github
page
is
good,
but
I'm
concerned
that
this
is
the
one
time
we
publish
things
that
aren't
rfcs
and
I
understand
it
might
be
a
compromise
to
get
something
out
there.
But
I
I
don't
I
again.
I
I
think
we
you
know
if
we're
doing
something
it
should
be
as
an
rfc,
because
that's
the
way
we
work.
A
D
E
What
I
have
in
mind
is
currently
once
a
year,
so
you
shouldn't
have
to
have
these
discussions
constantly
that
maybe
once
a
year
people
review
suggestions
and
and
modify
that
web
page
accordingly
could
be
every
six
months.
It
could
start
out
at
six
months
intervals
and
go
to
once
a
year.
I
don't
know,
but
I
I
think
certainly
less
frequently
than
we
want
to
update
an
rfc.
C
Interestingly
enough,
I
agree
almost
entirely
with
rich
here,
though
I
I
do
take
keith's
point
about
the
update
frequency.
I
don't
think
it
will
update
that
frequently.
After
maybe
the
first
couple
it
might
cycle
quite
fast
to
start
off
with,
and
then
I
think
it
will
change
quite
slowly.
It
has
to
change
quite
slowly.
The
whole
point
is
that
we're
choosing
conservative
terms
that
will
last
us
a
long
time,
they're
supposed
to
go
in
documents
that
will
last
20
30
years.
If
we're
trying
to
update
this
thing
every
month,
we're
doing
it
wrong.
C
C
The
question
of
whether
it's
going
to
be
trusted
as
an
rfc
and
hence
considered
a
standard.
I
don't
think
it
makes
much
difference.
I
think
people
will
refer
to
it
regardless
and
try
and
use
the
weight
of
the
itf
as
a
baton
to
whack
other
people
over
the
head
with
you
should
do
this.
I
don't
think
the
way
we
publish
it
will
make
any
difference
if
it's
from
a
website
that
says
itf
on
it,
it'll
be
treated
the
same.
C
H
H
I
I
Oh
we're
almost
on
the
right
path.
Let's
slow
this
down.
Okay,
I'm
rambling,
but
I
think
it
should
be
an
rfc,
because
that's
how
we
publish
things-
and
we
can't
we
say
in
other
forms-
we
can't
control
how
people
use
them,
we're
not
the
protocol
police.
If
someone,
you
know
we're
following
industry
trends
here,
we're
not
leaving
them.
No
one's
gonna
use
our
list
of
words,
which
is
called
from
what
other
people
do
as
a
way
to
beat
people
over
the
head.
A
C
Yep
just
replying
to
victor's
point
there.
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
to
make
sure
that
the
draft
uses
very
positive
language
and
and
very
encouraging
and
and
may
rather
than
must
and
should
about
the
substitutions,
and
at
that
point
it's
no
different
than
other
documents
and
back
to,
as
I
said
before,
I
think
it
doesn't
make
a
difference
when
we
publish
it.
I
have
already
seen
the
draft
that
exists
already
being
used
in
other
places
on
the
internet.
I
say:
hey.
Look.
C
The
the
iatf
already
says
this
things
with
draft
in
their
name
are
treated
just
as
real
as
rfcs
by
the
rest
of
the
world.
It's
it
says
ietf
in
the
url.
That
is
enough.
I
don't
actually
think
it
makes
much
difference
to
how
people
will
see
it.
So
I
think
this
is
a
it's
a
legitimate
concern,
but
I
don't
think
it's
a
significant
risk.
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
make
any
difference,
how
we
publish
it,
but
I
think
using
rfc
publication
thing,
amongst
other
things
means
we
always
know
it.
C
A
So
I've
seen
a
couple
of
people
and
andrew
plus
one
to
rfc
along
the
lines
of
88.90.
So
am
I
hearing
for
those
who
think
having
some
sort
of
rsc
would
be
good
that
you
think
an
rfc
stating
what
this
is
about
is
what
we
want
and
then
the
list
would
be.
The
list
of
possible
terminology
would
be
somewhere,
independent
or
you're
thinking.
We
want
to
build
this
list
and
solidify
it
in
the
rfc.
I
wasn't
clear
on
those
who
liked
the
idea
of
an
rc
what
they
were
looking
for.
A
F
And
that's
particularly
important,
because
I
have
now
seen
in
this
discussion
and
curiously
enough,
a
discussion
in
another
context
which
is
closely
paralleling
it.
Although
not
at
quite
as
high
a
volume
terms
used
that
are
themselves
offensive
and
discriminatory
and
demeaning
used
to
discuss
whether
or
not
people
should
be
using
or
not
using
a
different
set
of
offensive
and
intimidating
terms.
F
If
we
codify
and
solidify
this.
As
a
visual
idea,
policy
is
going
to
turn
out
to
be
the
source
either
the
source
of
yet
another
debate
of
likes.
We've
been
having
the
last
couple
of
months
or
dismissive
behavior
towards
somebody's
position
that
something
or
other
is
offensive,
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
navigate
this
in
a
way
which
keeps
the
ietf
focused
on
surprise
its
technical
work
and
its
contributions.
F
A
F
G
Yeah,
which
is
just
to
say
that
without
harping
on
too
much
about
rfc
8890,
but
forgive
me
that
is
published
as
informational-
and
I
think
that's
what's
needed
here-
is
something
which
is
informational
and
other
than
that.
I
pretty
much
agree
with
what
john
just
said
and
to
to
focus
on
principles
would
be
particularly
helpful,
because
I
guess
the
risk
of
publishing
a
list
of
forbidden
words,
for
example,
or
is
twofold-
a
it
will
be
out
of
date
b
depending
on
your
cultural
references.
G
A
G
B
B
A
D
C
C
I
would
certainly
be
satisfied
with
that,
because
I
I
likewise
agree
that
we
don't
have
a
giant
problem
and
I
think
we
could
create
a
giant
problem
for
ourselves
by
trying
to
solve
a
small
problem,
but
I
know
other
people
have
different
opinions
about
the
both
the
level
of
the
problem
and
the
value
of
any
particular
signal.
Really,
it
comes
down
to
whether
we're
signaling
to
the
world
that
we
care
about
them
and
a
way
to
do
that.
That
doesn't
signal
to
other
large
sections
of
the
world
that
we
don't
care
about.
E
Yeah,
I
was
just
thinking
a
minute
ago
that
really
the
immediate
near-term
thing
that
we
need
to
decide
is:
how
does
this
document
get
maintained?
How
does
this
what
I'm
calling
the
github
document
now,
even
though
it
would
probably
be
hosted
somewhere
else?
You
know,
and
that's
that's
the
thing.
I
think
what
we
a
lot
of
us
want
is
for
this
stuff
not
to
be
critical
path
for
other
ietf
work
or
virgin
dispatch
right.
E
But
at
some
point
we
kind
of
need
a
proposal
for
how
to
do
it,
and
so
the
next
task
might
really
be
edit.
A
proposal
for
how
this
gets
maintained
and
one
thing
that
gendes
dispatch
might
decide
to
do
is
say
we'll
entertain
proposals
on
the
mailing
list
for
how
to
maintain
this
kind
of
thing,
and
then
that
will
get
dispatched
later.
E
A
D
A
Pause,
I
mean
a
plausible
answer
to
your
question:
is
gen
dispatch
could
say
to
alyssa
look
form
yourself
a
mailing
list
and
have
a
quick
buff
at
one
or
another
ietf
meetings,
and
you
know
assign
appropriate
people
to
get
an
rfc
on
the
principles
written
and
a
way
that
you're
going
to
manage
this
on
that
list
over
there.
That
goes
with
the
buff
that
you
set
up
and
be
done
with
it.
A
A
F
Yeah
I
was
I
I
I
I
was
going
to
try
and
just
put
this
in
jabber
and
then
the
last
comment
or
so
inspired
me
and
just
really
have
the
right
term
it.
The
first
answer
is
where
to
dispatch,
as
I
suggested
earlier,
I
think
our
best
alternative
is
dispatches
to
nowhere,
no
github,
the
iatf
web
pages,
bitbucket
or
elsewhere
no
committing
they
need
to
prepare
that
non-existent
list.
No
task,
that's
no
discussion
about
where
to
discuss
it.
F
F
If
there
has
to
be
further
discussion,
I
would
rather
have
the
discussion
on
a
document
by
document
basis
in
context
until
the
cultural
agenda,
the
culture
just
itself
as
necessary
to
better
use
of
terminology
and
avoidance
of
offensive
terminology
and
has
been
pointed
out
earlier.
I
do
not
believe
we
had
like
like
the
earlier
comment,
I
think
bronze.
F
I
we
don't
have
a
major
problem
here.
There's
no
evidence
that
we
really
have
a
major
problem
here
and
if
this
is
a
relatively
infrequent
problem
which
crops
up
occasionally,
then
I
think
we
ought
to
be
doing
this
on
a
informal
correction
basis
and
and
on
a
on
a
private
comments
to
author
basis.
Unless
there's
rejection
of
the
author
very
much
to
the
point
of
how
we
handle
things
which
some
individual
doesn't
think
are
offensive
and
bullying,
but
other
people
might
especially
those
being
offended
or
bullied.
G
Yeah,
as
I
put
on
jabber,
I
think
the
problem
with
posting
it
nowhere
so
dispatching
it
nowhere.
Rather,
even
though
I
agree
with
john
and
ron
and
others,
I
don't
think
this
is
a
huge
problem.
I
think
the
issue
we're
doing
nothing
about
it
is
that
in
itself
sends
a
message
which
will
be
unhelpful,
so
give
it
an
issue.
G
So,
given
the
sheer
volume
of
discussion
on
the
ihf
mailing
list
from
a
few
weeks
back
just
dropping
it,
I
think
would
be
the
wrong
approach
and
for
the
same
reason,
I
think
putting
it
back
to
the
ihf.
Mainly.
This
would
also
be
distinctly
unhelpful,
given
that
the
discussion
on
the
ihf
mailing
list
degenerated
into
an
unproductive
discussion
previously.
G
I
That's
not
a
good
thing
and
it
tends
to
not
work
well
or
tents,
work
really
badly.
When
you
have
marginalized
communities
or
victims,
I
don't
think
we're
anywhere
near
that
stage,
of
course,
but
it's
not
a
good
way.
You
know.
Well,
if
you're
offended
speak
up,
that's
like
saying:
well,
if
you're
being
abused
speak
up,
it
tends
to
be
you
know.
Experience
has
shown
us
that
it's
hard
and
again,
I'm
not
saying
this
direct
parallel
or
that
we're
anywhere
near
close
to
that
by
probably
orders
of
magnitude.
A
C
C
So
another
list,
but
advertised
widely
and
clearly,
I
think,
has
a
lot
of
value
saying
that
those
who
are
offended
by
something
we
don't
want
to
have
to
force
them
to
take
on
the
work
sure
the
flip
side
is
that
we
have
to
be
sure
that
they
otherwise
would
take
on
the
work
in
the
itf
and
add
value.
Otherwise
we
have
basically
we're
we're
chasing
at
shadows.
C
Yes,
I
think
it's
just
commented
on
there
having
people
who
are
proxying
for
those
who
are
supposedly
offended
coming
in
and
using
that
as
a
way
to
force
their
views,
because
they
can,
they
can
say
the
lurkers
in
email
are
complaining
to
me
and
supporting
me
and
and
feel
marginalized.
I
think
that
is
that
a
failure
mode
that
we
can't
really
allow
to
happen.
C
The
most
important
thing
here
and
I'm
seeing
the
comment
of
we
want
it
to
be
as
minimal
as
possible.
We
do
want
to
send
a
welcome
signal
to
people.
We
have
I
mean
you
look
at
the
the
makeup
of
the
itf,
you
could
say
it's
systemically
racist,
you
could
say
it's
systemically
western.
You
could
say
systemically
english,
you
could
say
systemically
american
to
a
large
degree.
It's
largely
people
from
the
usa.
There
are
lots
of
ways
in
which
we
don't
represent
the
entire
world.
C
D
C
That
to
show
up-
and
we
want
them
to
feel,
welcome
when
they
arrive,
and
so
our
goal
needs
to
be
something
that
welcomes
those
who
have
an
interest
in
that
and
are
willing
to
do
the
work
and
so
having
a
group
that
is
there
for
those
who
want
to
get.
There
is
hopefully
not
filled
by
hobbyists
who
care
about
this,
but
don't
care
about
the
itf's
work.
C
A
F
F
Turning
into
an
activity
for
hobbyists
to
use
his
term,
we
then
dictate
to
the
people
trying
to
do
technical
work,
how
they
should
do
that
technical
work
that
has
intermittently
been
a
intermittently
but
long
term,
been
a
problem.
The
idf
I'm
concerned
about
encouraging
it
and
I'm
concerned,
as
I
think
I
said,
in
the
chat
about
getting
into
a
situation
where
people
have
to
choose
between
being
part
of
this
conversation
and
doing
technical
work
or
any
other
kind
of
work
which
improves
the
internet
or
on
the
idea
of
style.
F
F
Then
it
is
appropriate
to
question
terminology
in
those
documents
and
if
the
people
who
are
most
offended
have
to
have
whatever
it
takes
good,
bad
or
indifferent
or
obnoxiousness
to
raise
those
issues.
Fine,
if
somebody
else
has
to
raise
them
on
their
behalf,
fine,
if
they
can
be
raised
privately
with
authors
as
less
problematic
than
having
to
raise
a
public
stink.
F
But
I
don't
see
how
to
do
this
on
a
basis
of
a
word
list
without
having
that
document
by
document
discussion
and
if
we're
going
to
have
the
document
document
discussion.
Let's
have
the
document
by
document
discussion
rather
than
trying
to
create
word
lists
and,
more
importantly,
special
discussion,
groups
and
communities
who
are
going
to
be
going
to
become
the
language,
at
least
for
everybody.
H
H
You
know
didn't
want
to
make
a
big
stink
about
it
on
the
list,
but
you
know
I
found
something
objectionable
and
I
wrote
about
it
and,
if
somebody's
so
shy,
they
can
probably
find
somebody
to
speak
for
them,
but
the
idea
that
we
will
stay
entirely
unaware
of
objectionable
material,
especially
in
the
current
climate,
seems
not
terribly
credible.
I
think
the
feedback
will
come
forward
one
way
or
another
well.
H
You
know,
but
a
specific
one
and
spoke
directly
to
me
and
it's
first
hand,
whereas
what
we're
seeing
sometimes
is
that
there's
a
hypothetical
class
of
people
on
b
on
who's,
behavior
speaking
and
then
the
credibility
does
go
down.
Yes,
when
we're
speaking
for
a
generic,
you
know
hypothetical
imagined
offended
person,
even
if,
even
if
it,
even
if
the
imagination
is
on
on
the
money,
credibility
disappears
once
it's
kind
of
vacuous,
but
indeed
some
people
might
be
so
shy
that
they
want
to
not
engage
in.
H
A
G
Yeah
yeah,
just
this
discussion
reminded
me
that
if
you
cast
your
minds
back
to
the
lengthy
dialogue
on
the
ietf
list,
I
do
remember
reading
one
memorable
post
by
someone.
That
said,
I
think
they
were
an
academic.
I
can't
remember
who
it
was
otherwise
I'd
say,
but
that
they'd
received
a
document
from
some
people
from
an
excluded
group
that
used
terminology
that
they
thought
should
have
offended
those
people
but
clearly
didn't
because
they
used
the
terminology
and
they
felt
they'd
done
a
good
job.
G
I
explained
to
them
why
they
should
have
been
offended,
and
I
struggle
with
that,
because
clearly
they
weren't
offended
so
you're
then
trying
to
transfer
your
feelings
about
terminology
to
other
people.
So
I
think
that
sort
of
thing
is
quite
problematic,
as
opposed
to
the
last
comment,
which
was,
if
you've
had
a
first-hand
feedback
from
someone
who,
for
whatever
reason,
feels
unable
to
represent
themselves
but
is
personally
offended,
that's
different,
but,
representing
the
specific
you
know,
groups
of
people
clearly
are
offended,
but
without
any
firsthand
experience.
G
I
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
something
that
was
mentioned
in
the
unofficial
chat
here,
we're
trying
you
know
overall
we're
trying
to
be
more
inclusive
and
to
say,
oh
well,
if
someone's
offended,
let
them
you
know
and
we
and
they
make
that
known.
Then
we
will
make
every
effort
we'll
bend
over
backwards.
What
have
you
to
accommodate
them?
But
the
concern-
and
I
raised
this
at
the
previous
meeting-
the
concern
is
not.
That
is
that
the
people
aren't
even
here
at
the
table.
I
Oh
this
just
reinforces
what
was
the
recent
article
white
hit
old
men
in
a
room
talking
loudly
they're,
never
going
to
be
here.
So
I
disagree
with
the
fact
that
we'll
get
feedback.
What
will
based
on
my
personal
experiences
on
the
ietf
list
in
open
source
projects,
we'll
get
feedback,
but
it
won't
be
that
kind
it
will
be
from
people
who
say.
No.
Everything
is
fine
and
that's
putting
it
mildly.
K
I
was
never
aware
that
it
had
any
cultural
sensitivity
at
all,
whereas
now,
having
seen
that,
I
would
potentially
think
in
a
document.
Well,
maybe
I
won't
use
that
term.
I'd
use
a
different
term
instead,
so
I
feel
having
a
list
of
words
just
to
warn,
warn
people
or
advise
people
that
maybe
you
might
want
to
not
use
these
terms
and
maybe
a
short
description
as
to
why
I
feel
that
that's
potentially
a
beneficial
thing.
K
I
do
see,
there's
a
concern
that
could
turn
into
people
trying
to
beat
the
sticks,
and
you
must
not
use
these
terms.
So
I
think
you'll
need
some
sensitivity
as
to
as
to
how
it
is
described,
but
generally
the
industry
seems
to
be
moving
this
direction
where
we
try
and
have
more
sensitivity
to
the
language,
and
I
think
that
the
itf
should
be
sensitive
to
that
industry,
trend
and
and
somewhat
say
yes,
we're
aware
of
that.
We
want
to
be
good
citizens.
A
C
C
H
F
I
I
I
think
we
we
need
to
open
up
the
private
channels
for
this
and
they
need
to
work
and
that
and
that's
one
specific,
constructive
suggestion
having
started
talking
again,
two
observations,
one
about
colin's
comment,
which
is
that
I
recognize
that
and
appreciate
it.
But
again,
following
up
on
bronze
comment,
we
better
make
certain
that,
if
we're
doing
that,
we
are
not
deciding.
This
problem
is
all
about
people
whose
skin
is
slightly
darker
or
whose
educational
background
is
slightly
different.
A
H
It
is
costly
in
time
and
often
costly
in
terms
of
employer
support.
You
need
to
work
at
a
company.
That's
rich
enough
to
fund
you
there.
If
you're
going
to
be
attending
regularly
or
if
you're
a
bit
of
a
hobbyist
like
me,
then
you
need
to
have
you
know
sufficient
independent
income
to
be
able
to
take
the
time
and
energy
to
do
this
rather
than.
A
A
D
H
Right
but
there
I
think,
the
structural
problem
that
makes
it
so
is
again,
not
terminology,
but
the
fact
that
this
is
a
competitive,
rough
and
tumble
place
and
that
the
employers
who
send
people
to
you
know
push
their
their
view
of
the
standards
and
technologies
through
expect
them
to
play.
Politics.
H
H
Right
but
but
you
know
but
but
sexism,
and
you
know
picking
up,
you
know,
pickup
attempts
and
harassing
and
so
on.
You
know
which
which
happens
in
any
industry,
happens
in
this
one
happens.
You
know
when
when
when
it's
all
just
men-
and
there
are
a
few
women-
you
know-
that's
that's
life-
isn't
about.
A
A
A
But
it
certainly
affects
what
might
be
exclusionary
to
other
people
and
and-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
people-
okay,
please
let
me
finish
all
right.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
people
don't
go
down
the
path
of
saying
that
these
that
certain
things
do
not
exist
because
they've
had
no
experience
of
them.
A
F
H
H
Really,
you
know,
I
think,
that's
a
big
difference.
It
is
a
credible
and
real
issue
and
probably
one
we
can
document
as
being
a
significant
issue
for
the
iitf.
Where
previously
I
said,
these
issues
are
not
a
significant
problem.
In
my
view,
the
women
issue
has
has
has
a
real.
You
know
feel
to
it
that
that
resonates.
I
Yeah
I
just
to
clarify,
because
I
think
victor
was
responding
to
the
comment
I
made.
I
wasn't
saying
that
when
I
said
the
people
who
might
be
offended
aren't
in
the
room,
I
wasn't
saying:
that's
not
why
they're
there
here
with
us,
I
I
wasn't
commenting
at
all
on
reasons
why
someone
may
or
may
not
participate.
I
I
was
just
saying
that
looking
at
our
membership,
we,
it
seems
pretty
obvious
that
the
people
we
think
are
partially
driven
away.
One
of
the
possible
reasons,
I
think,
there's
enough
reasonable
words.
There
are
the
language
and
confrontation
style
and
or
let
to
focus,
keep
it
focused
the
language
and
also
to
repeat
what
I
said
previous
meeting.
I
G
Sorry,
just
coming
off
mute
yeah,
just
picking
up
on
on
that
last
conversation,
you'll
see
I
posted
in
the
jabra
I
mean.
Maybe
the
the
roc
could
usefully
look
beyond
just
terminology
to
inclusiveness.
More
broadly
because
you
know
the
ietf
is
not
a
particularly
diverse
organization,
but
in
fairness,
neither
is
the
tech
sector.
G
G
To
be
perfectly
honest,
I
think
that's
a
problem
more
to
do
with
culture,
and
maybe
that's
where
a
slightly
wider
sort
of
focused
or
more
broadly
framed
informational,
rfc
on
on
inclusiveness
would
be
useful,
just
to
sort
of
give
some
broad
principles
and
still
to
to
be
clear
that
the
igf
does
or
would
welcome
more
diverse
participation
by
different
groups
and
then
just
just
very
briefly
on
on
the
list
of
forbidden
words
to
be
avoided.
Whatever
I
I
just
remember,
I
think
I
said
this
on
the
last
call.
C
Well,
I
I
also
want
to
bring
it
back,
maybe
to
a
discussion
of
where
we're
going
to
go
go
from
here,
because
I
just
feel
like
we're
going
around
in
circles.
One
question
that
comes
out
of
all
of
this
is:
what
are
our
success
criteria
for
this
work?
How
do
we
know
it's
succeeded?
How
do
we
tell
that
we're
going
in
the
right
direction?
C
I
I
think
we
have
the
previous
meeting.
We
don't
have
either
of
the
authors
of
one
of
the
drafts
here,
which
is
difficult,
because
one
of
their
main
objections
to
my
draft
was
that
it
didn't
cite
references
and
it
wasn't
pointing
to
scholarly
research
in
the
area,
and
I
have
notes
to
address
that.
The
turtles
all
the
way
down
problem,
which
I
think
is,
is
part
of
the
problem
also
with
the
list.
That's
in
github.
C
Yes,
all
these
organizations,
saying
these
words
are
problematic
and,
to
a
certain
extent,
they're
all
cross-referencing,
each
other
and
cross-referencing
the
same
research
and
to
some
extent,
also
having
the
same
groups
pushing
into
each
of
these
organizations
that
these
words
are
problematic
and
then
mirroring
it
back
out,
and
that
was
certainly
one
of
the
concerns
that
was
raised
in
the
mailing
list,
with
the
potential
for
the
ietf
to
be
used
to
amplify
that
same
message
that
that
is
being
pushed
in
and
obviously
also.
The
issue
with
with
any
scholarly
work.
C
I
would
prefer
us
to
do
it
from
sound
principles
and
from
the
principle
of
our
goals
are
still
to
produce
high
quality
technical
documents
for
the
internet.
If
we
became
a
super
inclusive
organization
that
had
millions
of
different
views
and
an
equal
representation
of
all
colors,
flavors
and
and
preservatives
of
people,
I
don't
think
that
would
be
valuable
if
we
no
longer
produce
high
quality
technical
documents.
A
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
think
my
colloquy
with
victor
probably
moved
us
further
away
from
the
goal
of
this
discussion,
and
I
apologize
for
that
which
is
you
know.
What
are
we
going
to
do,
whether
we
count
this
as
a
wildly
important,
immediate,
solve
issue
or
a
minor
thing?
That
would
be
good
to
do
anyway.
That
will
increase
our
ability
to
write
good,
solid
technical
documents.
C
C
Basically
a
welcoming
document,
informational,
rfc,
saying
we
want
to
use
inclusive
language.
We
want
to
use
good
terms
and
the
reason
we
want
to
do
it
is
that
we
want
a
variety
of
inputs.
We
want
to
bring
people
from
all
over
the
world
with
all
different
backgrounds
who
are
interested
in
producing
high
quality
technical
documents
to
further
the
internet.
C
We
want
our
environment
to
be
welcoming
all
these
good
things
and
a
place
where
discussion
of
specific
terms
that
are
causing
specific
issues
or
specific
things
can
happen.
That
is
not
the
all
iitf
list,
but
is
some
long
running
place,
because
I
don't
think
this
is
a
problem
we're
going
to
solve
now.
C
I
think
we
need
a
place
for
discussion
to
happen.
I
think
it
needs
rules.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
built
in
a
way
that
doesn't
devolve
into
special
interests
fighting
at
each
other.
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
If
I
had
an
answer
to
that
now,
I'd
be
rich,
but
I
think
that's
not
not
your
rich
actual
with
money
yeah.
I
think
we
need
a
document
and
I
would
love
it
to
be
a
consensus
document.
C
As
soon
as
you
bless
a
particular
list
of
words,
you
no
longer
anything,
that's
not
on
that
list
is
considered
to
be
of
less
value
and
I
think
that's
exclusionary
in
and
of
itself,
but
I
think,
having
a
place
where
we
accumulate.
The
things
we
know
about
is
a
good,
a
good
idea,
because
we
do
need
some
kind
of
place
where
this
is
discussed.
If
you
do
nothing,
then
if
you,
if
you
go
so
wishy-washy
that
you
don't
record
anything,
then
then
that
that
is
a
statement
of
doing
nothing
at
all.
A
A
Yeah
right,
like
a
principal's
document,
I
and
I
see
robert
in
the
cube,
but
I
I
like
putting
that
question
out
and
then
we'll
to
robert
in
a
moment.
Are
there
strong
objections
to
doing
sort
of
principles
rfc,
whether
it,
whatever
status
it
might
have
what
a
principles
are
and
a
you
know
possible.
Look
aside
list
of
suggested,
useful
terminology.
F
F
I
I
think
such
a
document
would
be
a
good
idea,
probably,
but
my
probably
is
based
on
not
understanding
whether
that
document
is
expected
to
reflect
ietf
consensus,
the
clear
opinion
of
an
individual
or
two
with
means
of
the
current
rules
that
cannot
be
published
in
the
idf
stream
or
something
else.
I.
F
A
H
One,
okay,
you
just
said
all
right,
peter
pete
yeah.
You
may
be
surprised
that
I
will.
I
would
in
fact
support
the
principles
document,
especially
if
it
leaves
the
specific
list
of
terminology
entirely
out
because
and
then
all
the
arguments
about
which
words
are
good
and
which
words
are
bad
and
which
ones
are
loaded
in
which
culture
evaporate
entirely
and
we're
talking
about
communicating
clearly
and
sensitively
and
listening
to
people
and
all
kinds
of
good
things
behind
which
I
think
we
can
all
stand
with.
No
real
controversy.
A
Interesting
and
let
me
follow
up
and
others
can
jump
in
with
this
as
well,
and
I
haven't
forgotten
about
you,
robert,
but
victor
or,
and
one
of
the
others,
do
you
object
to
having
a
a
list
of
words
with
discussion
about
why
they
might
or
may
not
be
useful
or
possible
alternatives
to
those
words
or
is
the
list?
You
know
right
out,
you
don't
want
to
have
any
such
list.
H
K
Yes,
I
mean
actually
in
terms
of
bronze
suggestion,
I'm
I'm
very
supportive.
What
he's
suggesting
there
on
many
fronts.
I
think
that
having
a
positive
document
is
definitely
the
way
forward.
I
feel
that
definitely
not
putting
a
curated
list
of
words
in
a
document
is
a
good
idea.
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
mistake.
You'll
have
a
lot
of
arguments
and
also
what's
clear,
is
this
terminology
and
what
words
are
good
and
bad
changes
over
time?
K
So
we
need
a
mechanism
that,
if
you
have
such
a
list
of
words,
that
it
can
evolve
over
time
in
a
reasonable
way.
So
so
again,
I
think
that
having
a
document
that
says
this
is
what
we're
aiming
for
and
it's
all
encouraging.
I
think
that's
a
good
thing.
I
do
actually
still
believe
that
having
a
list
of
words
is
useful
outside
of
that,
like
the
github
with
the
references,
I
actually
like
that,
I
think
it's
good.
I
I
personally
would
say
I
would
regard
not
saying
that
words
are
problematic.
K
I
would
say
the
words
are
potentially
problematic,
so
I
don't
want
to
say
you
should
not
use
these
terms,
but
more
that
more.
Maybe
you
should
think
about
using
these
other
terms.
They
might
be
better
choices,
they
might
be
less
loaded,
less
culturally
sensitive.
So
not
a
telling
people
off.
These
are
bad,
but
these
are
potentially
better
choices
so
again
trying
to
frame
that
in
a
positive
light,
I
think,
is
a
good
thing
and
the
one
other
points
that
ron
made
about
do.
K
We
need
to
include
references
as
to
why
we're
doing
this
again.
I
agree
with
ron
here
that
that's
not
necessary
in
my
mind.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
say.
Oh,
these
are
cases
where
people
have
got
this
wrong
and
hence
we
need
to
fix
this.
I
think
again
having
the
document
purely
focused
on
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
and
why
we're
trying
to
achieve
it
is
sufficient.
I
don't
think
there's
any
need
to
pull
out
particular
cases
or
particular
expressions.
E
E
We
don't
have
any
of
the
real
strong
objectors
on
this
call,
but
I
suspect,
we'll
get
some
pretty
strong
pushback
if
there's
not
a
place
to
put
examples
of
terminology-
and
I
I
might
like
like
it
if
I
were
wrong-
but
that's
my
guess,
and
as
for
the
outcome
of
this
meeting,
I'm
wondering
if
the
right
answer
is
create
a
mailing
list
so
that
the
discussion
goes
somewhere.
It's
not
in
gen
dispatch,
it's
not
on
the
ietf
list.
E
A
So,
and
and
to
frame
that
you
know
one
question
that
I
was
asked
sort
of
you
know
separately
and-
and
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
one
is
if,
if
we
do
propose
that
there's
going
to
be
a
document-
and
let's
say
it's
going
to
be
ad
sponsored
well
who
who
gets
to
choose
who's,
the
editor
and
and
what
that
document
is
going
to
look
like.
And
would
it
not
be
easier
if
we
just
did
one
of
the
app?
A
E
How
do
you
get
that
document
and
do
you
does
the
iesg
or
the
chair
pick
a
document
and
say
that
shall
be
the
starting
point,
or
do
you
sort
of
entertain
suggestions?
I
mean
there's
problems
with
both
approaches.
I
don't
know
I
feel
like
we
need
some
concrete
output
of
this
meeting
so
that
we
don't
loop
forever.
I
I
You
know
just
the
column
b
as
opposed
to
the
column,
a
is
important
to
get
people
thinking
along
the
right
terms,
and
it
doesn't
do
anything
starting.
We
say
well,
if
you
have
a
collection
of
servers
and
one
of
them
is
in
charge
of
the
other
or
whatever
the
words
are
use.
These
terms,
I
think
we
need
to
have
examples,
and
I
think
it's
not
by
saying
oh
we're
not
going
to
use
the
word
master
slave,
but
we're
going
to
say
well
in
this
kind
of
situation.
I
Use
this
terminology
in
this
kind
of
situation
use
those
terminology.
This
is
not
an
exhaustive
list,
I'm
less
much
less
worried.
I
guess
I
can
use
the
25
cent
word
sanguine,
I'm
much
more
sanguine
about.
If
something
new
comes
along,
how
we
update
the
rfc,
we
have
a
whole
errata
system.
We
can
decide
to
publish
a
document
that
says
here's
some
more
examples
or
we
can
issue
a
whole
new
rfc.
You
know
once
we
get
enough
word
changes.
I
D
A
A
Means
not
to
work
right.
I
mean
the
the
sound
I
heard
from
the
last
few
comments
was
especially
keith
but
other
working
group,
so
that
we
would
maybe
set
up
a
mailing
list
to
how
to
get
bronze
document
into
this
principles.
Document
we're
talking
about
and
then
it
would
be
80
sponsored
because
that's
you
know
if
we
want
it
to
be
an
ietf
document,
that's
our
only
choice
other
than
a
working
group,
all
right.
H
So,
just
since
I
opened
this
question,
I
don't
have
much
experience
with
iatf
process.
I've
really
been
focused
a
lot
more
on
in
a
few
narrow
technical
areas.
So
I
can't
really
comment
on.
What's
a
working
group
and
what's
an
ad
sponsored
document,
then
neither
of
them
sounds
particularly
objectionable
so
long
as
it
produces
the
kind
of
document
under
discussion.
Okay
appreciate
it
for
me:
fine,
whatever.
I
A
Yeah
well,
and
maybe
keith
can
talk
to
it
better,
but
my
interpretation
is
that
working
groups,
because
they
have
the
formality
that
they
do
go
in
with
an
assumption
that
they
are
going
to
output
some
document
and
whether
or
not
the
working
group.
Actually
it
comes
to
a
clean
consensus.
There
is
a
push
to
get
the
document
out,
whereas
80
sponsored
might
not
have
that
kind
of
bias.
A
C
I
I
just
wanted
to
answer
the
question.
Would
I
be
willing
to
do
this?
I
threw
my
hat
into
the
ring
by
writing
this
thing
in
the
first
place.
Okay,
I
think
I'm
committed
to
this,
I'm
happy
to
do
it.
I
do
not
want
to
be
the
only
author
on
it.
I
would
love
to
have
other
authors
from
a
variety
of
viewpoints
involved
in
this.
C
I
don't
think
it
is
right
to
have
it
come
from
one
particular
viewpoint,
given
that
we're
trying
to
be
inclusive
here,
so
I
I
would
like
to
have
certainly
the
authors
of
all
three
documents
that
led
into
this
agreeing
in
this
goal.
I
think
otherwise
we're
not
going
to
find
consensus.
So
I'm
great
I'm.
A
C
K
They
don't
you
don't
see
them
on
on
its
109
agenda,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
so
it
just
from
a
sort
of
inclusive
perspective.
I
feel
that
having
a
working
group
is
easy
for
people
to
see
and
know
where
this
discussion
is
happening
and
not
to
exclude
people
as
to
your
comment
about.
Does
a
working
group
mean
that
it
has
to
produce
a
document?
K
I
I
think
that
could
be
part
of
its
chart
to
say
his
charter
is
to
investigate
this,
to
try
and
produce
a
document
if
it's
possible,
but
equally
a
valid
outcome
for
the
working
group
would
be
to
say
there
should
be
no
document
here.
So
I
think
that
that
would,
for
my
perspective,
would
be
an
okay
part
of
a
working
group
charter.
L
I
think
one
of
the
strengths
of
the
document
that
mallory
and
niels
wrote,
which
isn't
reflected
in
the
other
documents,
is
that
it
recognizes
that
we
have
a
broader
issue
with
inclusivity
in
the
ietf
community
and
building
on
some
of
the
other
documents
I
would
be
concerned.
We
would
perhaps
miss
that
recognition
and
focus
too
much
on
a
very
narrow
focus
on
a
particular
terminology
questions.
L
A
M
Everybody
I
was,
I
was
struggling
a
long
time
if
I
want
to
contribute
to
this
discussion
or
not
or
if
I
can
bring
anything
and
that
moves
the
discussion
forward.
The
point
I'm
a
little
bit
disappointed
about
is
that,
like
writing,
any
document
won't
help.
What
what
will
help
is
people
change,
people
notice,
the
problem,
people,
caring
about
terminology
and
having
a
discussion
about
this,
hopefully
the
first
step,
providing
some
recommendations
is
another
step.
M
Having
a
document
about
welcoming
people,
you
know
is
nothing
that
will
hurt,
but
I
also
don't
think
it
will
change
anything.
What
will
change
is
people
raising
the
problem
and
people
noticing
it
and
then
changing
their
behavior,
not
sure
if
that
helps
the
discussion
for
this
specific
document,
but
that's
at
least,
like
my
point
of
view
for
this
discussion.
N
Yeah,
so
thanks
to
amelia
for
for
saying
something
rather
important,
I
wonder
whether
pete
you
feel
the
need
to
dispatch
the
documents
or
dispatch
the
topic,
because
I
I
hear
us
moving
towards
well.
We
should
found
our
work
on
this
document
or
we
shouldn't
and
at
the
same
time
or
previous
to
that,
we
we
seemed
to
have
said
yeah.
We
we
need
to
have
a
document
and
if
you
dispatch
the
topic,
then
the
working
group
can
sit
down
and
work
out
what
document
it
wants.
A
I
do
I
would
like
to
dispatch
the
topic
in
general,
and
maybe
that
becomes
something
closer
to
what
miri
is
talking
about.
Is
you
know
what?
How
do
we
get
people
to
be
more
inclusive,
etc
and
and
a
single
document,
maybe
that's
you
know,
coming
up
with
ways
to
promote
that
idea,
but
yeah
I
I
would
love
for
there
to
be
clear
output
on
the
whole
topic.
I'm
not.
I
wasn't
hearing
it
yet.
N
A
C
It
if
I
wasn't
clear
enough
before
I
I
absolutely
agree
with
maria's
points.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
have
at
least
one
of
the
authors
or
both
the
authors
really
of
the
other
draft
involved
in
this
as
well.
Mallory,
obviously
ticks
more
of
the
inclusion
boxes,
but
either
way
we
need
to
have
them
on
board
as
well.
Otherwise
we
certainly
don't
have
consensus.
They
are
people
who
cared
enough
to
to
make
an
effort
in
this.
D
C
M
Yeah,
so
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
don't
make
good
progress
here
is
because
we're
jumping
into
this
general
topic
of
inclusivity,
which
is
super
important.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
we
have
a
problem
and
we
need
to
do
something,
but
it's
very
broad-
and
I
don't
think
we
agree
what
exactly
the
problems
are
and
what
exactly
the
measures
are.
We
don't
want
to
do
so.
M
I'm
not
sure
if,
like
actually
having
more
discussions
about
this
on
a
mailing
list
and
working
group
or
whatever,
whatever
will
move
us
forward,
because
it's
very
different
angles
which
need
different
measures.
We
do
have
some
things
that
addresses
this
already,
which
is,
for
example,
the
mentoring
program
to
get
new
people
in.
We
have
the
ombuds
team,
which
is
an
important
part
here
and
so
on,
but
like
it's,
it's
very
broad.
M
So
that's
that's
also
why
I'm
a
little
bit!
I'm
disappointed
about
this
discussion
because,
like
I'm,
a
member
of
the
isg
and
when
we
put
the
statement
out,
we
actually
saw
that
this
part
about
terminology
is
like
one
specific
small
angle
of
the
big
problem
that
is
easier
to
address
and
we
can
reach
some
consensus
quickly
in
the
sense
that
you
know
people
should
just
watch
out
for
it.
M
They
should
be
aware,
and
then
everybody
individually
as
an
author,
should
should
potentially
consider
this
and
change
their
behavior
rather
than
needing
like
broad
consensus
about
this.
So
this
is,
but
this
is
only
one
little
piece
of
the
puzzle
and
I'm,
as
I
said,
I'm
disappointed
to
see
so
much
controversial
discussion
about
this
already.
But
having
a
working
group
that
tries
to
include
everything
about
this
broad
topic
will
probably
not
work
out
any
better
than
what
we've
seen
so.
F
The
comments
about
the
initial
draft
which
set
this
off
are
to
a
certain
extent
part
of
that
discussion.
It's
it's
a
broader
issue,
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
very,
very
careful
and
that's
why
I
support
emergency
various
original
comments.
But
I
am
not
quite
certain
about
her
second
one,
but
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page.
E
E
I
do
think
that
by
starting
with
this
with
this
language
topic,
which
it
might
have
seemed
like
low-hanging
fruit,
but
it
might
have
actually
created
more
controversy
than
necessary
because
there
are
so
many
more
glaring
ways
in
which
ietf
is
not
inclusive
than
that
that
focusing
on
that
topic
might
have
actually
kind
of
caused
more
heat
than
it
otherwise
would
water
under
the
bridge.
I
still
think
we
have
to
address,
because
we've
been
talking
about
the
language
topic.
That's
that's
really
what
we
need
to
address
now
and
so
I'd
like
to
so.
G
Yeah
just
sort
of
reflecting
on
the
some
of
the
comments
just
now.
I
I
think
if
there
were
to
be
an
inclusiveness
working
group
given
that
is
a
much
bigger
topic.
It
should
only
be
on
the
basis
that
this
document,
whatever
it
results
as
it
should
be
the
first
output
from
it.
So
it
doesn't
just
get
lost
in
a
morass
of
a
whole
bunch
of
other
stuff
to
be
done,
and
also
learning
from
the
last
document
that
was
pushed
out
by
the
is
iesg.
G
A
That
I'm
hearing
that
people
think
we
might
be
able
to
get
a
principal
document
on
the
language
stuff
done
and
that
something
bigger
on
inclusivity
is
a
good
thing
in
principle,
but
maybe
not
something
that
we
think
we
are
ready
to
dispatch
out.
To
I
I
mean
I
haven't
heard
real
objection
to
having
some
sort
of
working
group
program
whatever
on
inclusivity,
but
that
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
objection
to
it
being
something
we
can
dispatch
right
now.
Am
I,
and
does
someone
want
to
disagree
with
that
assessment.
M
The
goal
is
here
to
change
behavior
to
change
our
culture,
but
this
is
not
something
that
we
will
achieve
by
writing.
An
rc,
it's
well,
it's
something
that
we
can
only
achieve
by
people
changing
their
behavior
individually
on
small
steps
and
for
me
actually
recommending
terminology
and
making
people.
Aware
of
that
is
one
of
those
small
steps.
There
are
many
more
right,
but,
let's
just
writing
it
down
in
a
document
in
an
rc
doesn't
help.
A
M
C
I
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
this
part
of
the
issue.
Here
is
that
to
get
people
to
change
individually,
there's
really
two
ways:
there's
pacing
and
leading
which
is
getting
them
on
side
first
and
then
leading
them
to
to
a
better
place
or
the
alternative
is
pretty
much
to
kick
out
the
people
who
are
not
on
board
with
the
program.
C
E
E
So
we
nobody
has
to
agree,
for
instance,
that
we're
doing
this
in
order
to
overcome
structural
inequity
that
has
been
perpetuated
by
culture
wars,
whatever.
Whatever
argument
that
you
want
to
make
it's
better,
if
we
don't
have
to
go
there
because
we'll
never
get
consensus
on
that,
because,
frankly,
there's
a
real
strong
temptation
for
people
to
get
religious
about
such
things
without
pointing
any
fingers
at
anybody.
A
M
M
If
we
try
to
mitigate
this-
and
we
just
describe
you
know
what
we
want,
we
don't
we
don't
solve
the
problem
and
I
mean,
as
I
said,
I
don't
think
that
that
an
rc
is
the
right
instrument
here
but
like
if
you
want
to
try
an
rc.
I
think
that
that
should
be
the
goal
trying
to
actually
tackle
the
problem.
E
D
A
H
A
H
C
I
have
a
question-
I
guess
for
miria
and
possibly
for
juliana
as
well,
which
is:
are
you
asking
or
requiring
this
document
to
say?
The
ietf
is
currently
bad
and
exclusionary
and
is
using
bad
language,
because
that
is
how
it's
reading,
and
I
think
that
is
the
thing
that
a
lot
of
people
object
to
does
this
document
have
to
say
we
have
used
bad
language
in
the
past,
we're
using
bad
language
now
in
order
to
achieve
the
objective
you're
trying
to
achieve.
C
A
The
next
steps
we're
gonna,
you
know
we're
going
to
try
francesca
and
I
are
going
to
try
to
summarize
this
whole
thing,
get
it
up
on
the
list
and
we're
going
to
look
for
specific
points
that
we
want
to
hear
agreement
or
disagreement
about
and
see
if
we
can
come
up
with
a
set
of
dispatches
both
on
the
idea
of
a
document
and
on
the
idea
of
future
work
in
the
larger
area
francesca.
Any
other
final
comments.
B
A
Okay,
so
we'll
we'll
try
and
capture
everything
from
the
chats
and
bring
those
into
the
minutes
as
well
and
we'll
bring
it
to
the
list,
and
please
do
speak
up
on
the
list
and
we'll
I
I
think
we
are
honing
in
on
ways
forward
here.
I
I
I'm
not
worried
that
we've
ended
up
in
the
where
we
began.
I
think
we
actually
do
have
some
potential
pads
here,
but
let's
let
us
both
summarize
for
the
list
and
see
if
we
can
get
those
done
all
right,
we're
four
minutes
over
time.