Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Alissa. Nothing good can come of this

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 04:37 IETF Sergeant at Arms <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team
> (described in more detail at [1]) has been in touch with Masataka Ohta
> off-list concerning their recent message [2] to [e-mail] under a
> new subject line but on the same topic against the direction from the
> IETF Chair [3]. We encourage everyone to review the IETF discussion list
> charter [4] and our SOP [5].
>
> Thanks,
> Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jxwdePey2Q6R7XgBQef5QS5paVU/
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t6AZcMH2S_YtldSNBlaNwPfO_P8/
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005
> [5] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md
>
>
> On 12/08/20 1:20 pm, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > IETF Chair wrote:
> >
> >> As stated on July 23, 2020, the IESG believes the use of oppressive
> >> or exclusionary language is harmful. Such terminology is present in
> >> some IETF documents, including standards-track RFCs, and has been for
> >> many years.
> >
> > That IESG made such statement without IETF consensus is wrong
> > and is the most efficient way to harm IETF.
> >
> > In the statement, IESG even stated:
> >
> >  > The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are
> >  > not uniform.
> >
> > which means IESG is actively aware that there is no IETF consensus.
> >
> >> Since the publication of the July 23 IESG statement, there has been
> >> significant discussion of this topic on [e-mail] as well as
> >> discussion of a related Internet-draft,
> >
> > It is partly because, IESG stated in the statement that:
> >
> >  > The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community,
> >
> > Now, how can you say you don't want to hear from the community?
> >
> > Because oppositions from the community is far more stronger
> > than you expected? If so, it's time for IESG to admit its
> > statement not based on IETF consensus is just wrong, which is
> > the way to avoid further harming IETF.
> >
> >> One
> >> suggestion made on [e-mail] [1] that received support from other
> >> members of the community was to explore and reference how other
> >> organizations and communities are approaching this issue.
> >
> > Why don't you quote the relevant part of [1]?
> >
> > In [1]. it is written that:
> >
> > : So what I think would be good would be to have a list of words
> > : and phrases that external communities (e.g., governments,
> > : universities, corporations) are either forbidding or
> > : recommending against.
> >
> > and because many, including me, are against to have the list
> > itself, we just said we are against to have the list itself
> > without specifically arguing against detailed way to have
> > the list.
> >
> > That "that received support from other members of the
> > community" deforms the reality.
> >
> >> The continued [e-mail] email list discussion on this topic is
> >> not benefitting anyone and is actively harmful in our collective
> >> pursuit of an inclusive and respectful IETF.
> >
> > IETF was already badly harmed by IESG's statement actively
> > ignoring IETF consensus.
> >
> > That we can confirm it through IETF mailing list discussion
> > does not mean the discussion is harming IETF any worse.
> >
> >  > By contrast, the brief
> >  > discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108
> >  > was cordial and constructive.
> >
> > "brief"? Then, there shouldn't have been any real discussion.
> >
> >  > On August 7, I requested [2] that participants put aside their email
> >  > commentary in anticipation of a to-be-scheduled GENDISPATCH interim
> >  > meeting where this topic will next be discussed. That request was
> >  > ignored.
> >
> > Of course. Though you wrote something about your opinion on result
> > of GENDISPATCH session, S Moonesamy wrote to you:
> >
> > : There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the mailing
> > : list.  I could not find any message pertaining to that in the relevant
> > : mailing list archives.  What are the actions items?
> >
> > You didn't give any answer, which is interpreted by anyone familiar
> > with IETF process to mean that the result of the session is not
> > yet formally obtained and your opinion on the yet-non-existent
> > result should better be ignored.
> >
> > As such, your request on August 7 was not constructive one.
> >
> >                              Masataka Ohta
> >
>
>