Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I totally agree with Brian's assessment.

Regards,
Mary.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 9:18 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Mallory,
>
> On 14-Oct-20 10:17, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> > Thank you very much Pete and Francesca for being thoughtful and patient
> > with this topic.
> >
> > I take issue with the negative connotation of the widely shared
> > sentiment that draft-knodel is controversial. It is indeed
> > controversial, because of its substance, and therefore that quality
> > shouldn't reflect upon whether or not it is a suitable basis for the
> > final phase of this work. In fact, I would argue that the draft *aimed*
> > to accurately capture and document the controversy in the context of the
> > IETF and so if we feel it is, therefore, controversial, then it has done
> > its job good and well.
>
> Let's stipulate that this is true, including the past tense.
>
> > I'd like us to be brave in the face of this controversy not just to
> > overcome it, but to properly document it (and for some of us to live
> > through it) so that we may grow as a community such that the next
> > controversy doesn't tear us apart nearly so easily.
>
> There I disagree, and I agree with Pete's and Francesca's summary.
> Paraphrasing, there is good reason to believe that we can fairly quickly
> agree on a document that lists terms to be avoided when reasonably
> possible,
> and good reason to believe that we could *not* quickly agree on a document
> that goes into the wider arguments.
>
> Functionally, that isn't much different from what W3C has done, except
> that they chose to use a web page, which is natural for them, as an RFC
> is for us.
>
> > While I want accord, I want more racial equality. And I do not think
> > erasure of discord over the issues of racial inequality in the IETF is
> > an effective way to achieve the latter.
>
> I haven't seen discord about gender, racial, national, religious or other
> kinds of inequality here. I have seen discord about whether language
> choices do or do not perpetuate inequalities.
>
> > The path forward if draft-knodel were to be the basis for a WG is simply
> > to add to and improve the documentation about why the terminology
> > recommendations exist. Some of that comes from academia and some of it
> > from other corners of the technical community at this moment in time.
>
> Unfortunately, I think that would be the best way to drag out the
> discussion for months. The less we say, the sooner we can get a result.
>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> > Niels and I would gladly welcome those improvements.
> >
> > -Mallory
> >
> > On 10/13/20 4:17 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> >> Here is a summary of what your chairs have concluded is the result of
> >> the two virtual interim meetings we held on the issue of terminology
> >> in IETF technical work generally, and draft-knodel-terminology,
> >> draft-gondwana-effective-terminology, and
> >> draft-moore-exclusionary-language specifically. We'll allow a couple
> >> of weeks for discussion of these conclusions on the list before we
> >> report back to Alissa the group's final recommendation on how we think
> >> this ought to be dispatched.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> First, we find that there was rough support in both meetings for
> >> creating a document containing recommendations on terminology to use
> >> in technical work, and that such a document should be Informational
> >> status. However, there were concerns about describing motivations in
> >> such a document for fear of "ratholing"[1], and so any significant
> >> discussion of motivations ought to be avoided.
> >>
> >> After extensive discussion, there were objections by the end of the
> >> first meeting to making the output of this work AD-sponsored, with a
> >> preference for a quick-spin-up WG. In the second meeting, there was
> >> more ambivalence as to whether AD-sponsored or quick-spin WG would be
> >> better. Putting this together, we think the rough consensus within the
> >> meetings was to have a quick-spin WG.
> >>
> >> There was rough support in both meetings for recommending a broader
> >> discussion and resulting document on inclusivity beyond the
> >> terminology, but there were many concerns for how to structure such
> >> work in a WG and have it be successful. Several suggestions were made
> >> to have the IAB sponsor such work as part of their program on
> >> "Diversity, Inclusion, and Growth". The thought was that perhaps a
> >> discussion there could generate a path forward for IETF work.
> >>
> >> We found a clear outcome in both meetings that draft-knodel has too
> >> much controversial discussion to be the basis of a document for the
> >> above mentioned quick-spin WG on terminology. There was rough support
> >> for recommending the use of draft-gondwana as a starting point.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> We are looking for a two important things in the discussion here on
> >> the list. First, if you have read the minutes of the meetings and
> >> believe that something was not discussed or that a point was missed by
> >> the people at the meeting that would change the conclusions in the
> >> above, please speak up. Second, if you think we misinterpreted the
> >> outcome of the discussion from the meetings and therefore should have
> >> come to a different conclusion, please let us know. Of course, you are
> >> also welcome to ask questions about how we came to our summary.
> >> However, we don't need to hear "+1" or "I agree with the above" (we'll
> >> assume you do if you say nothing) and importantly we do not want to
> >> re-litigate discussions that happened during the meeting unless you
> >> have new information to contribute. Simply restating arguments isn't
> >> going to change the outcome. So please do re-read the minutes of the
> >> meetings before posting.
> >>
> >> Thanks for everyone's participation,
> >>
> >> Pete and Francesca
> >>
> >> [1] In case you haven't seen the IETF use of that term before:
> >> Interminable and often useless or off-topic discussion, as if to fall
> >> into a messy pit made by a rat.
> >>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>