Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Inline plese.

On 09/08/2020 10:42, Joel M. Halpern 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.)

I'm a bit reluctant to such a list, there is a risk that if the list
says instead of word 1 use word 2, we create a way of saying "word 1",
with another word, and over time the meaning will slowly change since
"everyone" know what was intended.

/Loa
> 
> 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
>>
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]