On Mar 11, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 10/03/2015 21:59, Jari Arkko wrote:
I wanted to say that I’m in agreement with Adrian on this. Ultimately,
no list will be complete, some judgment needs to apply, and I
think we’ve covered this in the text better than if we attempted
to expand the list.
(And I am, of course, in agreement with Stewart that things that
he lists are definitely important and certainly should not be misused
in any professional discussion.)
Jari
Jari
I fail to see why the IETF which has no significant expertise
in this area has chosen to make up its own list rather than
using one put together by professionals.
I did not just think up those additional items, they are part
of a list that experts on the subject put together for
example:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
This kind of list is always based on bad experience. Such lists never include
blood type or hair color for the simple reason that these attributes have not
been used as a basis for discrimination or harassment (dumb blonde jokes
aside).
This particular list is based on the experience in Europe, perhaps even more
specifically in the UK. The experience within the IETF may be far different.
Is there age discrimination in the IETF? Does age need to be a protected
characteristic? I could honestly ask the same question for most of the other
characteristics in that list.On the other hand that list does not include
characteristics such as employment and nationality that are very likely to come
up in the IETF.
We’ve had a call to remove a chair in the IRTF based on his employer last year,
and people are often judged based on how “cool” their employer is (Google and
Cisco are cool. Microsoft? Not so much) as well as based on their country
(Russia is not cool right now. Finland always is)
So I don’t think that list is appropriate for us.
Yoav