Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>