Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 28/7/20 14:30, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:55:50PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 28/7/20 12:54, Nico Williams wrote:
>> [....]
>>>> (3) We are an international community with aspirations to be
>>>> even more so.   That may imply that a term or acronym that is
>>>> neutral or otherwise acceptable in English may be offensive,
>>>> oppressive, or exclusionary when translated or transliterated
>>>> into another language.  We should probably be aware of that too.
>>>
>>> There are limits to how sensitive we can be to issues we're not aware
>>> of.  I.e., we depend on reviewers to tell us about the issues they are
>>> aware of.  Which brings us back to your point about banned word lists
>>> not possibly being sufficient.
>>
>> Part of the issue is, I guess, that much needs to be second-guessed, because
>> virtually all the communities that would find the aforementioned language to
>> be offensive are under-represented here (if at all represented).
> 
> Because we are such an international community, but also a very very
> small and unrepresentative subset of the world's population, we're bound
> to have under-represented communities.

That sounds a bit like naturalizing non-inclusiveness -- in many 
different aspects.

I disagree that we're necessarily bond to that.


[....]
>> Maybe if one were to try to address the underlying problem (inclusiveness),
>> any issues related to language would be solved as a side-effect?
> 
> We're a very specialized, *self-selected* group.  No one ever said to me
> "hey, you'd bring diversity to the IETF, so your next assignment is to
> participate there".  Nor is that a recipe for the further success of the
> IETF.  Many of us are not sponsored in any way by employers.  When I was
> at Sun my IETF participation was never a principal aspect of my job, and
> I participated entirely of my own initiative.  Ditto my employer
> previous to Sun.  Ditto all my employment since.  I believe this is true
> for most IETF participants.

Are you suggesting that participants from, say, the top-10 or top-20 
affiliations are self-funded?


  [....]
> Perhaps you mean that we have barriers to entrance that produce an
> exclusive club. 

That's, sort of, what I meant. BUt not just "entrance".


> However, of all the SDOs, the IETF is by far the most
> accessible by any and all measures:

Fully agree on this one.


> ease of access (mailing lists,
> meetecho, etc.), cost ($0 for mailing list participation, which is the
> only participation that is required to get RFCs published, i.e., work
> done),

This one is very debatable. Yes, "on paper", you only need maling-list 
participation.



> discrimination (our rules for selecting a NomCom and I*
> leadership are explicitly non-discriminatory using any plausible
> protected classes).

Well, the rules are that you need to have attended X recent meetings, 
which in turn requires funding of some sort.



> All other SDOs are far far more costly and less
> accessible at the very least: ISO and member nation SDOs, the ITU-T, the
> UC, IEEE, OASIS, etc -- all expensive membership organizations and
> inaccessible to non-members.

Fully agree on this one.



> We've yet to hear a plausible proposal for increasing diversity at the
> IETF.  In the meantime we have to operate with who we are.  Decrying our
> lack of diversity will not help us.  Instead, we need (and have!)
> mechanisms for identifying use of offensive language and correcting it
> prior to publication 

As noted, I do support this effort. That said, the sad state of affairs 
is that, from a practical point of view, in most cases the potentially 
offensive words will not get to the folks that would most likely be 
offended by their usage.

That's the underlying issue that I think is being overlooked, or not 
considered to be an issue.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492