Re: Some more thoughts about language and what to do next

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 14:06 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 AF1AE3A0DEF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:06:18 -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 5ncXpStlYL_w for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anteater.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (anteater.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.3]) (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 D28AA3A0DD7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:06:16 -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 D85FD214CF; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a41.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-5-127.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.5.127]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E0D0D21632; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:06:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a41.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); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:06:15 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Bottle-Company: 120d890c5c075095_1596204375658_1554757897
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1596204375658:3780884669
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1596204375658
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a41.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a41.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563567FF3B; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:06:14 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=A8auUSKKN4Y9a9OytWIKFenyfms=; b=T8Aup0/vKip zB0FrYuAsTjNNv7oOZIvJDHoA5+cGHaJD8toRuuAWs0AVJHwObQ5FlPc8X2BMdm+ txLsQg9EhKs+F7/E3VS+bB/yhP0kmnnOrO1EVlx0pNTZN/syeCuGCdw5/tAXdDtM /8JsmfPpldE3JckaF9mEPDOgm9keI2Gc=
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-a41.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA4B27FF34; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 07:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:05:38 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a41
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, "Vinton G. Cerf" <vint@google.com>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Some more thoughts about language and what to do next
Message-ID: <20200731140536.GQ3100@localhost>
References: <09474801-7189-4C01-8242-163454C3E936@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <09474801-7189-4C01-8242-163454C3E936@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrieekgdejfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggugfgjfgesthekredttderjeenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegvdeivdeggfdthfetgffhueffgeelgfeghfdvgfdtfffhveffieehffeiuedufeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7qJucZYbznwiJHFjyitSGIvMZmk>
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, 31 Jul 2020 14:06:20 -0000

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:10:37AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I’ve got a proposal for a way forward toward the bottom.  &tldr; be
> iterative and do research.

I've got a better proposal: let the SAA and/or obudsperson, and
ultimately the appeals process when participants choose to appeal their
decisions, be the arbiter of what is and isn't unprofessional /
unbecoming / offensive language.

A key required component of leveraging the SAA function -in order to not
overwhelm it- is that we should ask participants to try to see language
in the best possible light by ascribing good faith to other participants
_by default_.  The alternative to this is devolving towards being
confrontational by default -- surely not a good thing.

We have the SAA and ombudsperson functions for a reason.

For example, if I use the word "folks" in a post to this list[*], then
rather than immediately getting the vapors and passing out, maybe you or
whoever might take offense should start by assuming I didn't mean to
offend, then consider the possibility that due to regional linguistic-
cultural variations my use of "folks" might be perfectly innocent, and
*move on* -- or, if the rest of my note were to drip with condescencion
and betray intent to offend, or if you're otherwise still unsure, then
reach out to the SAA.

Nico

[*] I'm sure I have!