Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 23:56 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[e-mail]> 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.)

Joel,

I'm going to answer a slightly different question.  I still
believe in the IETF principle that we operate bottom-up.  I have
come doubt recently that others do, especially as we see
policies of various sorts developed top-down and out of public
view and them exposed to the community for "consultation" or
approval.  I hope the changes are just an aberration due to the
unusual circumstances of the last six months or so and that our
processes will soon return to normal but wish I were more
confident about that.

So I think anyone in the community has the right to ask anyone,
including a particular review team or any or all WGs, to look
for problematic language... and to use whatever examples they
think are important in making that request.  Those participating
in that team or WG are, presumably, free to treat it as a
request -- one that they should consider but are not obligated
to accept and follow.

Now, to take that a step further and respond to a question you
definitely did not ask but that seems to be underlying some
small bits of this discussion (and a few others that are going
on): Does the General AD/ iETF Chair (or even the entire IESG)
have sufficient authority to insist that members of a review
team do a particular type of review --for language, for
conformity to the AD's views on some particular technical
matter, or something else -- or to pick/allow only those people
on the review team whose views are harmonious with theirs?  No,
I think that would be an abuse of power, a violation of our
principles of bottom-up decision making and doing things by
community consensus, and a serious danger.

 best,
   john