IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 3F4DD3A043A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 rkM16ZAoQuh3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cadetblue.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (cadetblue.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F8E3A0433 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E10E120F6C; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:35:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-12-26.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.12.26]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8AD50120BB4; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:35:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 05:35:36 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Abiding-Power: 69a0f67b1914ccbd_1596951335822_2915825592
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1596951335821:2206631238
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1596951335821
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363A983C1D; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=Ajhr1Wa2FZYdZG J/D/vkwlMmuOc=; b=sBmIz+TDOW1i3+/g7LCzZZYsD82cbNcy11EP0JbXYLXevb BACLjo8eDbd4MzKwMfSs/fubYiE+jlGc7xQfGiLzaOvzspcoYvWVm2CxlBrLdVQf GgWZsP21TSy8IAMaZ5u4LD6kSNXQFtV9hLoBHwa7v8t8M/4KEvy7tRuXH9hQU=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 957E583C1C; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 00:35:31 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a15
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Message-ID: <20200809053529.GW3100@localhost>
References: <737B9515-C538-4EEB-8A5D-672987A0FE86@akamai.com> <20200807190716.GQ40202@straasha.imrryr.org> <845bd95e-0d95-a164-40f9-e9c45feed6dc@gmail.com> <6D464C5C-D9CB-47A1-A8BB-CD8CAD21B779@cooperw.in> <B5969C0B-EF25-40CF-BFB4-8E062C90CA24@gmail.com> <90fd8bff-c81c-5518-65c6-b929132a4bdd@comcast.net> <44B55324558FD335BADB4165@PSB> <56fd2677-df6a-8ff2-6093-6e8d42442973@joelhalpern.com> <60160A936BE682CEDE0704E1@PSB> <ae46e43a-e5db-0f57-0b01-6c2c2ff7a1ed@joelhalpern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ae46e43a-e5db-0f57-0b01-6c2c2ff7a1ed@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: 0
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrkeehgdelhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdektefhueetveeigfefgeejteejvdfhhefgvddtfeeujeehleeguefhgffhgfenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7mwjaC2Fm0kErNK4b4n--9zYxG8>
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 05:35:39 -0000

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:56:36PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Let me approach the quesiton of what i sneeded slightlhy differently.
> 
> Do you think the General AD has enough support / authority to ask the
> gen-art reviewers to look for problematic language?  If so, what should she
> point to as examples of what one might look for?  (The gen-art review team
> has people with a range of language backgrounds.)

Speaking for myself, I do.  It's not just reviewers, but also shepherds,
directorates, ADs, RPC staff, and the RSE -- quite the gauntlet.

Certainly this approach could be attempted, and if still I-Ds make it
onto the RFC-Editor queue with offensive language (where the RPC staff
could also object to offensive language), then we could revisit the
matter.

Most likely we've not had offensive language in use in recent I-Ds/RFCs.
We might not even have a problem to fix.  No evidence has been presented
that we do have a problem to fix.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email