On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote:
>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive >> discussion. > > To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be > subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive. It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time. Best, David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
