Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

After talking with Dan, we discovered that we actually didn't give Dan the kind of private warning we thought we did. Though we sent a couple of "gentle reminders" to him privately, the message we thought we sent out with a more stern warning never left the Drafts folder. We think we probably wouldn't have sent the public warning had we realized that, and meanwhile Dan has apologized publicly and assured us he's going to avoid such comments in the future. Given all that, and since we sent out an "official" 3934 public notice, we will "officially" retract that public notice.

Nonetheless, we rely on you all to keep acting professionally for us not to make use of RFC3934. Thank you for keeping the conversation constructive and respectful.

Thanks,
Pete and Francesca

On 14/10/2020, 18:16, "Francesca Palombini" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Dan,

    The chairs discussed your message last night / early this morning.
    Even if some of the content is on point and some of your complaints
    might be reasonable (e.g. "I tried to work with you but you never
    replied to me"), that does not excuse the personalized accusations and
    characterizations in the rest of your message. It is disruptive to
    getting work done in this group and will not be tolerated. This sort
    of thing has already been discussed with you privately. Consider this
    your public warning. Your behavior must change or your posting
    privileges will be suspended.

    Pete and Francesca

    On 14/10/2020, 01:05, "Gendispatch on behalf of Dan Harkins" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


        On 10/13/20 2:17 PM, 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.

           I don't think you're characterizing the controversy accurately. It is 
        not that the topic is
        controversial and you have captured that in your document, the 
        controversy is the way
        you describe issues, the fallacious logic, and the baseless accusations 
        you make in your
        document that are controversial.

        > 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) 

           Live through it? I'm sorry, have lives been threatened? I missed 
        that. What _exactly_ are you
        talking about?

        > 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.

           I want racial equality too (and a cure for cancer!). But imposing 
        speech codes and calling people
        racist is not the way to go about achieving that. The mere existence of 
        a racial disparity (from some
        idealized "norm") is not evidence of racism, otherwise the NBA is the 
        most racist organization
        in the USA if not the world given it is nearly 75% black when blacks 
        make up 13% of the population.

           It seems that you're suggesting that publication of your draft, and 
        the changing of certain
        metaphors in RFCs, is an effective way to achieve racial equality in the 
        IETF. That is magical
        thinking. It's unhinged from reality.

        > 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.

           I provided comments in email to you and Niels. I gave you comments in 
        an online IEEE 802
        meeting when you tried (and failed I should note, in spite of 
        accusations to the contrary
        made later) to get your draft's recommendations enacted in IEEE 802. And 
        I gave you
        comments in the gendispatch meeting. You never replied to any of them, 
        either in email or
        in the meetings. You just ignored me.

           Which isn't to say that no changes were made. I complained about how 
        you called a person
        out, by name, as a racist for a comment made on a blog post 15 years 
        ago. That was most
        unprofessional and I'm glad you removed it, but the text you replaced it 
        with alleged racism
        among IETF participants for discussing this matter. You're basically 
        calling me a racist (since
        I was one of the participants who tried to discuss this matter with you) 
        which is outrageous.
        You should be glad I'm not the litigious sort.

           So your words say "we welcome improvements" and your actions say "if 
        you disagree with
        us it means you're a racist." That is not the way to form consensus and 
        it's not the way
        we get things done in the IETF.

           I agree with the chairs' observations: draft-gondwana is the way to go.

           Dan.

        > -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