Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Hi Francesca,

   Yes, it was disruptive and included too many bombastic adjectives which
could be taken personally. I regret hitting send. It would've been better
had I just waited for Brian's much more sober response that I could've,
as Mary did, given a "+1". For the record, I do agree with Brian's
assessment (and your interpretation of consensus for that matter).

   regards,

   Dan.

----
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

On 10/14/20 9:16 AM, Francesca Palombini 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
>