[Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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.