IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 666733A1B40 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 4Q0il1rtwmSu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B840A3A1AE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3548; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1595873391; x=1597082991; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=B/rxOaUmCyu66F4EAW1CoPHxJV6AfDVhgACsO1d9edM=; b=cUW2LNFiF4kzWyVTxUUK1ZNvdewvAlico0gg3dhISLT/V468gGFTg39F orOZvAt1D6jvx65cWfpR6CzHTPUlY/+lXA3icVd/lF8wq2P+DSlW79sHb PMbprjpmPfPOmzOufHggyo4oLBi0mUx3dtWtgI7EELmBxiEkiq2XyN5Fa M=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0CcDQDXFx9f/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCCgKBIYJKASAShGCJAYgfk3WGG4F8CwEBAQwBAS8EAQGETAKCKCU7Aw0CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVyAQQBI1YFCwsECjQCAlcGgzmCXSCuQHaBMoVShROBOAGNFoIAgREnHIIfLj6HUzOCLQS1aoJogwiMCIpeAx6RRo4ehXCnaoNWAgQGBQIVgX0BD4FXMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDZxnPwNnAgYBBwEBAwmQEQEB
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.75,403,1589241600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="25798991"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Jul 2020 18:09:47 +0000
Received: from [10.61.227.89] ([10.61.227.89]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 06RI9lcI022706 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:09:47 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <407347EF-6CB0-41E1-A8AE-F286F8F81D67@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7BDEA41-8360-445B-878F-66DAF78586C6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:09:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQX73LFKG9NgimR9cizR_ghmwep34k1UFzNce5x_5ebQA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <45882975-e4d1-045f-2556-d8defee22c91@lounge.org> <1BE15CF8-ECA3-48E7-BCEF-145EADF6D2EC@nohats.ca> <E1BD1EF8-E2A2-4057-86BB-AA080B506146@cisco.com> <CAL02cgQX73LFKG9NgimR9cizR_ghmwep34k1UFzNce5x_5ebQA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.227.89, [10.61.227.89]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HJtj195_JaKRkv6nQCkk1Q-dG2s>
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:09:54 -0000

Hi Richard,

> I would just like to push back on the idea of there being a dichotomy here.  There is a lot of room for feedback and even dissent that is not toxic.

Yes.
 
> For me where the "toxic" line is crossed is when folks start to invalidate the experiences of others.  We've seen this in other venues, notably in the RFC series discussion.  A newcomer says "This is hard for me" or "This doesn't meet my needs" and hears back "It's not hard" or "It meets my needs just fine".. 

That’s well put, but we also tend to project what we think is hard, and end up in endless debates about that.  We need to allow for some of that but we also need to allow for pushback in those circumstances.  And even when there is a person who is offended, we have to ask whether that offense is reasonable.  We have seen that as well over the years.  This may seem invalidating but that is why we don’t make decisions based on the views of single individuals.  Having that discussion respectfully and courteously of course is always in order.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email