Re: [Gendispatch] revised

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 31 March 2021 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E303A3361 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KTYS17OPIwj7 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastern.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (eastern.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F119C3A335C for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F21B361D30; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-133-36.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.133.36]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B585A361AA5; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.133.36 (trex/6.1.1); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:22 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Macabre-Daffy: 5a24a2f803c6d0b1_1617218542425_2988818087
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1617218542425:3241204132
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1617218542424
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EC785813; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=mjs8vV352HDe1C Xe1/PwZ08UWVQ=; b=O31AUqe6rW7FQlH1P1QB+PTcBFsKaqIiuU04Q9Kav8vX4X W5QU3VViVtHl104SMwqXxhtqXbm33sRcHULdVzdDNRmWyRu1bUYhthBvtHTv6GsC MzRKzOI6bssLDtyrwHdqzeBaMqTAWgzAJU5Ad679AbklmLYyDVTloantEkUY8=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a35.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BA2D85439; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:22:16 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a35
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210331192215.GB30153@localhost>
References: <6F387137-46E4-4CDE-9BCA-CAED684D3AA1@sn3rd.com> <32149fda-1d17-c167-1699-43ed3c02f516@si6networks.com> <f0f31d9c-cdd5-ccf7-3524-f243afe7bd8e@lounge.org> <E929EAEC-99AD-486F-A110-FE32CA83964B@akamai.com> <75b90e7c-837d-e271-987b-0f22361d44a3@cdt.org> <876b2018-e720-97d8-0bdf-8941aa42a7b0@lounge.org> <1ca9e781-2f5c-355f-ac75-37dc00b1d650@cdt.org> <3aae286a-6a27-8016-9c81-4ef3dfa6cf9e@lounge.org> <20210331181123.GA30153@localhost> <CAMm+Lwhg+-K5K3H33uThuPY9zifnUdcSML9xDg8Qsa8L8zfK8A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwhg+-K5K3H33uThuPY9zifnUdcSML9xDg8Qsa8L8zfK8A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/J4aIEBmOz6WHShQhvwFNFoMAo_M>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] revised
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:22:34 -0000

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:53:01PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:12 PM Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:49:28AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> > > Let me remind you again that disparate impact is not evidence of
> > > racism and it is a fallacy (specifically, the residual fallacy [1]) to
> > > claim otherwise. So, excluding disparate impact, where is this racism
> > > and bias you speak of?
> >
> > The IETF's volunteer nature, with no gatekeepers, means that the IETF
> > can neither be the cause of nor the solution to lack of diversity of any
> > kind.  Though perhaps in order for the IETF to join our brave new
> > age-of-the-hyper-ostrakon, we must have gatekeepers (who hopefully will
> > only ever discriminate on the basis of approved criteria).
> 
> That is certainly not true. Particular since as with every other
> international standards body working in the communications space, we have
> to deal with a small number of very very well funded individuals who are
> not actually individuals at all, they work for enterprises and in some
> cases nation-state actors whose objectives are entirely malign.

They're still "volunteers" and _we_ don't yet gatekeep (at least we
don't keep anyone out proactively based on any criteria at all, but
reactively as a result of spam or harassment).  Maybe we should, but we
don't.  That part of my statement was not incorrect in the least.

> Case in point was when IETF tried to deal with spam and of course some folk
> paid by the spam kings showed up to act as wreckers.

We currently only have processes to exclude as a result of a
participant's actions (e.g., harassment).  I wouldn't call that
gatekeeping because we're not keeping people out proactively, only
reactively.  And I don't believe there's been a single allegation that
any exclusion has been motivated by racism, sexism, or any other -ism,
not even politics.

> Of course there are going to be nation state actors involved pursuing
> covert agendas. It is naive to think otherwise.

But this thread isn't about nation state actors pursuing covert (or
overt, for that matter) agendas.

> Without gatekeepers, the field is open to those of malign purpose to bully
> and disrupt.

Evidently we might need to discuss the meaning of "to gatekeep".  To me
it's mostly about keeping people out proactively, but I guess it means
more than that to others, so maybe I need to pick a better word.

Nico
--