nanog mailing list archives
Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:38:18 -0400
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:41:10PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
When I've attended meetings, I've seen that the vast majority of participants are white males. It seems reasonable to expect that those without the same immutable characteristics might feel different or even excluded.
And making a new list will make them less excluded? Seems to me it involves codifying their exclusion.
Current thread:
- OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) rdobbins (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Adrian Chadd (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Randy Bush (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) William Allen Simpson (Jun 09)
- RE: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Alexander Kiwerski (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Shawn McMahon (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) John Fraizer (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Ana Susanj (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) John Fraizer (Jun 10)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Ana Susanj (Jun 09)
- RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Rachel Luxemburg (Jun 09)
- Re: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Matt Ranney (Jun 10)
- RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Rich Sena (Jun 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Richard A. Steenbergen (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Bradley J. Passwaters (Jun 09)