Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

+1.

The issue from the original thread aside, this is outrageous behavior by
the IETF leadership, and calls into question the very integrity of the
rough consensus process, something that requires open debate and radical
transparency, under this leadership. At this point, I have no confidence
that the actions of the IESG represent the rough consensus of the IETF.

Kyle

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I consider this an abuse of your presumed authority
>
> in no way should an expression of disapproval of an IESG action be
> considered as a continuation
> of the discussion that caused the IESG action
>
> I also agree with Mike that there is no way to twist RFC 3005 to support
> the suppression of
> disapproval of your actions or the actions of the IESG
>
> Scott
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 2020, at 1:04 PM, 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 determined that Nadim Kobeissi
> > has engaged in a pattern of abuse based on their recent substantive
> messages to
> > this list [2][3] under a new subject line but on the same topic
> > against the direction from the IETF Chair [4]. Their posting rights to
> the [e-mail] mailing list have been
> > restricted for the next 14 days.  We encourage everyone to review the
> > IETF discussion list charter [5] and our SOP [6].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the SAA team
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
> > [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
> > [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fRi97MQxvKq6jNy1EFILFh3_dxI/
> > [4]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t6AZcMH2S_YtldSNBlaNwPfO_P8/
> > [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005
> > [6] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 13, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I see that the emails from others above expressing *approval* for the
> IESG are not receiving correctional visits from the SAA, so I wanted to
> make sure that I expressed myself in The Correct Manner moving forward:
> >>
> >> +1! I agree with Alissa! Thank you for taking this action! Excellent,
> thank you!
> >>
> >> Nadim Kobeissi
> >> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
> >>
> >>> On 13 Aug 2020, at 3:50 PM, 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 Nadim Kobeissi
> 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/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
> >>> [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 13/08/20 6:38 pm, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> >>>> RFC 3005 mentions that the following topics determine what constitute
> inappropriate postings to the mailing list:
> >>>>    - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
> >>>>    - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
> >>>>      activities, or technical concerns
> >>>>    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
> >>>>    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
> >>>>      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
> >>>> The discussion on terminology falls into none of the above
> categories. In contrast, the following is listed clearly as an appropriate
> topic of discussion:
> >>>>    - Discussion of IETF administrative policies
> >>>> The discussion of a proposal to revise the fundamental language, even
> into the past, used by the IETF due to political and ideological reasons
> espoused by some IETF members in the United States seems like a pretty
> important IETF administrative policy issue.
> >>>> Furthermore, there appears to be an exceptional lack of consensus on
> this issue. Despite the IESG’s insistence that
> >>>>> …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.
> >>>> , we appear to be far from such consensus. And despite the IESG
> asserting that
> >>>>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community,
> >>>> , the discussion is explicitly banned by the IESG when it appeared
> that the broader IETF did not at all appreciate or agree with fundamental
> notions of language attributed to the IETF by the IESG based on what
> appears to be a complete detachment from reality.
> >>>> As an Arab immigrant I have never seen any of my peers even consider
> harm from words such as “master” or “blacklist”.
> >>>> And yet, I can assure you that we have a deeply-etched understanding
> of the signs of cultural totalitarianism, otherization, demonization and
> the breakdown of institutions and discourse in favor of political
> fanaticism.
> >>>> I have been working on protocols for many years and I do not
> exaggerate when I say that I am existentially frightened by what I am
> seeing happen in technological institutions and working groups.
> >>>> I deeply oppose the IESG’s conduct regarding this matter and express
> worry for what is to come for the open, free and *truly* inclusive nature
> of our communities.
> >>>> Finally, I feel great remorse at seeing bad faith automatically
> attributed to anyone who questions the long-term implications of these
> views being declared uniformly as “true” of the IETF by the IESG, and I
> regret to see the discussion shuttered like this.
> >>>> Nadim Kobeissi
> >>>> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
> >>>>> On 11 Aug 2020, at 8:02 PM, IETF Chair <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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. It is at odds with our objective of creating an inclusive and
> respectful environment in the IETF, and among readers of our documents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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, draft-knodel-terminology, during
> the GENDISPATCH working group session at IETF 108. 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. Based on this suggestion, I will be
> working together with the authors of draft-knodel-terminology to create an
> online resource that lists references to other organizations’ and
> communities’ approaches. The resource will provide tips for document
> authors and reviewers to assist them in identifying instances where usage
> of metaphors can be made more clear and accurate and less exclusionary.
> This resource will not be in the form of an Internet-draft but rather will
> be a more easily updatable repository or wiki page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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. By contrast, the brief discussion that
> occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108 was cordial and
> constructive. 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After consultation with the sergeants-at-arms and the IESG, I have
> made the decision under RFC 3005 to block postings of further messages to
> [e-mail] in threads with the following subject lines:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
> >>>>> USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary
> Language
> >>>>> Some more thoughts about language and what to do next
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Per the sergeants-at-arms standard operating procedures [3], anyone
> who changes the subject line and posts a substantive message on this same
> topic to [e-mail] will receive a Level 1 response from the
> sergeants-at-arms. In the Level 1 response we will indicate that if the
> original poster sends another message on this topic to [e-mail], the
> poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of
> posting rights from [e-mail].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The community’s energy on this topic will be most productively spent
> by providing feedback during the GENDISPATCH interim about the resource
> mentioned above once it exists. The GENDISPATCH chairs will be working on
> scheduling the interim when they are both back from vacation. Once the
> GENDISPATCH interim takes place, the decision to restrict postings in the
> [e-mail] threads listed above will be revisited.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Alissa Cooper
> >>>>> IETF Chair
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q/
> >>>>> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NbPi05FzPbebNALxuvJskGyHbSM/
> >>>>> [3] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>