IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73C93A0C15; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Sy4sKEmPfqRL; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62993A0C13; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1974; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1595526344; x=1596735944; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TOyDlWgB9w09a9w1NpybxzbTpGonFtHg/TKNZffOOfQ=; b=d/laEmC8IRoZ/ohwTL6vByxoPjPty4CnVcNcJr7evefsckKmqiNJDbQs mLX9X9G4ywjDcjXFNkwlSE/gWnz/5QdV66o4a8dqM4PTslZM7vcFHczF3 kASYHsfrOQI4iFZzchFBAxxiEJqH4zIln5+5HMbAcMSRjPyFPeoXdVVAQ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D2AgAAzBlf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAgUqCKm9UASASLI00iBqcCgsBAQEMAQEYCwwEAQGETAKCGyU4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcQEBAQECAQEBODEDCwULCxguJzAGExSDEgGCXCAPrWB0gTSEOwEDAgIMQUKEeQaBOI0OggCBESccgh8uPoJcAQEDAYFbg0mCLQS1WIJngwiFTpETAx6fW4VtlkyRD4NSAgQGBQIVgWojKoEtMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ2OKheIYoVEPwMwNwIGCAEBAwmQEgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,387,1589241600"; d="scan'208";a="28140193"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Jul 2020 17:45:39 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-103.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-103.cisco.com [10.61.103.103]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 06NHjdRS012517 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:45:39 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:45:39 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6AB72DAE-47DF-429C-ABB4-31E11D9D29EA@cisco.com>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.103.103, dhcp-10-61-103-103.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-4Rt15pIqCEk53jllpmsJy8oE90>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:45:46 -0000

Hi,

I support this draft being adopted as a starting point, but I would like to see some substantial changes.  I have said this in other contexts, and I will say it here: what is needed is not a dictate on specific words, but rather a well-understood framework by which we decide these sorts of things.  I suggest that we do what we can to attract appropriate expertise into a working group to participate.

Eliot


> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:35, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> The IESG believes the use of oppressive or exclusionary language is 
> harmful.  Such terminology is present in some IETF documents, including 
> standards-track RFCs, and has been for many years. It is at odds with 
> our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in the 
> IETF, and among readers of our documents.
> 
> The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are 
> not uniform. Determining an actionable policy regarding problematic 
> language is an ongoing process. We wanted to highlight that initial 
> discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a 
> draft [1] is slated for discussion in GENDISPATCH [2] at IETF 108).  
> Updating terminology in previously published RFCs is a complex endeavor, 
> while making adjustments in the language used in our documents in the 
> future should be more straightforward. 
> 
> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in 
> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this 
> issue going forward.
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-gendispatch-03
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email