Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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.

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. 
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.
>
-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780