Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 07 August 2020 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 8F1A33A0E5E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Np23d9cFlDRM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419053A0E07 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id b2so1275720qvp.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 12:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UpUBbo5cnzEDWeTC3tMJqLKBdGhx52yvVb8edcMikqI=; b=MVuS3zpEOT3qo/zsOLYacPOk+5IGGF0djoldTN+lNMDRSi8aficai8b/o7ARH2B4Nu qNwp5Y0NKjbzX3r6zLbVYaEkgMhKJm7q7Nts/Rj12DgMxm8tVw/3ZVEzYznxasTYZMWi TZKvAJ8f39mVFFV/zYrIPnwzBXzEWupmT1ScTtKg1AKDgdA2yXnqMjG6yjUzMHTD6z1D dJGnJ9nmIR1FB6CHKueuyACI4v04ZY3TJvf5ZAytzEJCnhBt4X9lmuw6csoyL0Wfe7Lh evi1EYd2a5NQcrOjo+V+0+VYvzCW5MaujEAfgthbhIyclpXZ3AkCh7jo7+AJej6jhxG9 cnoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UpUBbo5cnzEDWeTC3tMJqLKBdGhx52yvVb8edcMikqI=; b=cMcWiWwVll9PuSIgE9oi90Sum1BHBPXLEW65SQheXpcMpjZ03R1uMKTl9X67FkGivv 89CRRUve/GdlAQJzIk2bfHTL/qYmG/hz9ziQ16GQL8U6zC/xS+2A9bB2J1/E7T22QhVQ 8rtcCy4tm5tLWKb1N2wtaxnuYG3+iQK3XNmNK8dYeQ/5LPti2fYZ+7Xo3psBRQDSEQDg kwCJfFFR9nj17y+qRudu7VIUS2OlDH9TUaMQ0zs9PyY2LxvmmhM9QDFdC74LQB/rvyvX x6Wtq/vJ9s3VAps0xZumlsiJNdsp19O2z/mTPblONt+G58q8j/2ZnXWyYCWJyoQSpXNT GE0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532twlGbKh2GOXl51CWXPcQGjbI2BmuNZcNsAsQACOUmMcJvX9Hp JjuxfVoW60x3tz2k/CLLubFYmfYyBLLKPC3RuQ2y6Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTYv5aQjaEtW5Aq/K+OEirCnLIFGlw5ZziSAJl14zawa45I8a5ziPkLt4HkriB9DbYpxmushf5xNrUd+DCIY8=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:446d:: with SMTP id s13mr16458382qvt.183.1596828856968; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5692e18e-afbb-9294-1074-3b81dafe8803@network-heretics.com> <59C4CA26-A1EB-4CF4-B973-BC2BBF53A094@gmail.com> <CAL02cgTZt-9+QWPT1aWXcOgpEwuNV2uHnVi5dGm7V5y_8_U1SQ@mail.gmail.com> <0cceb0f2-b5fe-a194-7ce8-68cc537f9cd1@lounge.org> <CAL02cgTV-cfTPO2wrKz0H2E=FLhagu-qs7fwx6jXeJDH-2cSHA@mail.gmail.com> <6fc4abe2-5343-e625-f2e7-ecfb52f91764@lounge.org> <CAL02cgR1wa8ssgsiLaG+uFKOh+7xZGuWtmxWa9HY5y+6pnRYLw@mail.gmail.com> <afd6e8e6-4da9-5ebe-f8a7-3e0f1e800f3e@lounge.org>
In-Reply-To: <afd6e8e6-4da9-5ebe-f8a7-3e0f1e800f3e@lounge.org>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 15:34:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTjRUqx2tQ_mAYxAA-5g9DndS2+XiFNXKojjg_VVRX=9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c9852f05ac4eb04f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1p5aSiklG0EYH5qvx3vhHQ12nFI>
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: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:34:21 -0000

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:43 PM Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:

>   I received actual feedback from actual people who claimed they were
> harmed by my first couple emails on the subject. What was the harm? One
> was that this person was considering blocking me in his email filter
> (i.e. putting me in a "denylist") because of my statements. The
> harm would be to the IETF because it would prevent the kinds of fruitful
> technical discussions that I had had with this person in the past.
>
>   Now, that's the kind of thing an emotionally abusive person does. It's
> "do what I say or you'll force me to do something you'll regret and it
> will be all your fault". That's messed-up and I don't put up with those
> kind of mind games. So while I too received real actual feedback from
> real actual people I dismissed it.
>
>   Your actual feedback sounds like the same sorts of mind games-- "if
> this discussion continues I'll give up on the IETF and you'll regret
> it!"
>

On the contrary, it is perfectly healthy behavior to refuse to engage with
people who dismiss your sincere concerns and whose behavior makes your life
more difficult.  And to communicate to them that their behavior is causing
you to disengage.

And it's a healthy reaction to respond to that feedback by reflecting on
whether the behavior that's driving people away is really worth that
consequence.

--RLB