Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

I'd suggest a different approach, one based on tone. 

I am of an opinion similar to some comments made in this discussion, that some people's skin is too thin, drawing offense where neither offense nor offensiveness is intended or imagined. The fact that a controller that controls other controllers is called a "master" is not inaccurate, as draft-knodel suggests; it is an accurate description of the control relationship. The usage doesn't condone the behavior of the ancient Egyptians with respect to Hebrew slaves, or Hammurabi's laws (http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Hammurabi-Slavery.html), or the behavior of certain middle-eastern countries that have until very recently have held slaves (https://www.wya.net/op-ed/slavery-in-the-middle-east/), or the US/UK treatment of blacks in 1600-1865.It doesn't condone the treatment of black slaves in Brazil either, who as a fraction of the marketplace outnumbered US/UK slaves 10:1, I understand. It describes the relationship between a controller-of-controllers and the controllers controlled, which is simply a design fact.

What I would suggest is that reviewers look at tone of writing. If someone is making KKK-ish comments, they're out of line and the point should be made.

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some words.  Here are some other words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of them.)
> 
> Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will there be an RSE?".
> 
> Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep the question in mind.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 8/8/2020 10:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Saturday, August 8, 2020 13:52 -0400 Michael StJohns
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any
>>> result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than
>>> just the IETF.  (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).
>>> 
>>> On 8/8/2020 5:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>>> I disagree with this approach.
>>>> 
>>>> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international
>>>> experts on technical language and the editors of other major
>>>> standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us
>>>> with a recommendation.
>> Agreed, but with two suggestions/provisos (both derived from
>> comments made by others):
>> (1) Unless we want to push the IETF toward a relapse in which we
>> are a US-based body with some "foreigners" allowed to
>> participate, whatever mechanisms are developed need to be
>> sensitive to inappropriate terminology in other languages,
>> whether natively there, plausible translations, or
>> transliterations.  We don't need to boil all oceans all at once,
>> but we have to start with the understanding that US English is
>> not the only language or culture when inappropriate language
>> occurs.
>> (2) While I agree that this should be an RSE task, I think we
>> need to remember that we don't have an RSE.  While it might be
>> possible to ask John to start the research project (although
>> that is pushing the boundaries of what he signed up for) he
>> doesn't have, and it might be problematic to give him, the
>> authority to start making decisions in this space.  We should
>> also note that one reading of the trends in the RFC Futures
>> discussion (not, obviously, the only reading) is that we don't
>> really need an RSE, especially an RSE with any authority.  If
>> that was actually the trend in that area, then assigning this
>> type of responsibility to the RSE might be something of a
>> contradiction.
>>     john
>