Re: Terminology discussion threads
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Tue, 11 August 2020 19:40 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.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 F15FC3A0B39; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qBXdbdmrrkbA; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035793A0B35; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id z18so43651otk.6; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=YPQONA298HWzKRnQclZs9wHbqF11AGN9yvEhNeXaanw=; b=mH+MWgVzibjYjwjx8uX+SuHi7K3J+my5vbn185cTl8o6/W7BI8fzNuflO8AZWkBZjY Qa8FcmlYcLlmdQlfrBhGBI7XSDsRndnW98PzIW/pb/ALlijuYikTQgNO+qkznmvbBSDh NSAaPohj0kmgz0GaHHm+JFQAR+yvDJhPp0CHnD2Hmh3ilZd3m/O3fvc6x4bFwfORsPZb FD6MZr0aDCC02bPlXkRrL0gyDbNocykPRi98HlCkCE5xLz1YCvhL2EdA8ioJ1wWbWQOl /2NRKoZLbD3QY25eDwkMGw/94osA7sN0X8InFYSW9BLZJC9SmgGQsWMRzFXlZE4OoKft jqVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=YPQONA298HWzKRnQclZs9wHbqF11AGN9yvEhNeXaanw=; b=aXN9pLpZUZKYWT3nl9k/ouR4LVx6iubnil6bb5wvFt9bQYcHhxm5r4tF/qZN0r1gjb 5J5DBSdz0nTsOiJXVsCQaa7G1d3b8qs6CPnQBqJkTZGtBPGWgXwGJmErXBdfEdey2YnN 3QHRcI7irOKej4uIHnFSiVxhpu990vP6vF+066oQBXPhGvqE/F5enW7bI9uBNkoMtzUH BQBOtGHuAbq1GWQwog0tOFPv4lzQqaowFX+clmVVHPWkFjEfci/l/r1EbI9iYjWQXVIW FFqn+3zfpbKyod6gX60AOluyswZwTTTo/ASVh1nYeuVbflVzkZnEoG4GPT71k3V330k4 3htw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GZ1XvZszarWrPHM2GQJZX8XmdRN80JJ+SCzdJ/7MDLmrZkOKc mOCu60P4w3IhUFZl4uEBG4Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNk2AM3ZYAzskbzp0zKH95Y2M0/EpVkoJaBMnqL46jGbUtnrOkGVEmp6n909NTo+LpZkirAw==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4b12:: with SMTP id q18mr6449272otf.304.1597174824296; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.128.0.24] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n25sm4320228otf.64.2020.08.11.12.40.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8775B9EB-1895-4C01-9826-804BEEE808EB@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_460C2D59-3F8E-47B4-B82D-9F42587EF914"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:40:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBxC=vHEtKLTvUsfFB7xfDENoMV_CLVpa4d=S7Q9cChJg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <CA+9kkMBxC=vHEtKLTvUsfFB7xfDENoMV_CLVpa4d=S7Q9cChJg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SFM02z0UCD_mcfg1lb5dUNtay_Y>
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:40:27 -0000
+1. I think having a discussion at gendispatch seems to be a good path forward. Thanks Suresh > On Aug 11, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for taking this action. I think taking this to a GENDISPATCH interim is a good alternative venue for the next steps here. > > regards, > > Ted > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:03 AM IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org <mailto:chair@ietf.org>> 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> [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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>, the poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of posting rights from ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>. > > 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 ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> threads listed above will be revisited. > > Regards, > Alissa Cooper > IETF Chair > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q/> > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NbPi05FzPbebNALxuvJskGyHbSM/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NbPi05FzPbebNALxuvJskGyHbSM/> > [3] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md <https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md> > >
- Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lars Eggert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ted Hardie
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lloyd Wood
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (CORRECTION) Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Masataka Ohta
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Duke
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Wendy Seltzer
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ofer Inbar
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Randy Bush
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Heflin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Charlie Perkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Kyle Rose
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bob Hinden
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nick Hilliard
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Pete Resnick
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- SaA Team actions (was: Re: Terminology discussion… John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Alissa Cooper
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Wouters
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Thomson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Rob Sayre
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bron Gondwana
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Christian Huitema
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Self-moderation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jen Linkova
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jared Mauch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- RE: Terminology discussion threads Larry Masinter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Weekly message summaries John Levine
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Fernando Gont
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Warren Kumari
- On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Miles Fidelman
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: On plenary functions Jay Daley
- Re: On plenary functions Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Self-moderation Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Self-moderation John Levine
- Re: On plenary functions Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Patrik Fältström
- Re: On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jay Daley
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Weekly message summaries Töma Gavrichenkov