Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Eric Heflin <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Scott.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:28 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>