Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan, Victor,
At 11:43 AM 07-08-2020, Dan Harkins wrote:
>Â  Oh please, spare me the [removed] privilege schtick. We both know
>what we are talking about and that is the discussion on
>draft-knodel-terminology and whether ON THAT TOPIC you are in the
>"in crowd" or the "out crowd".
>
>   You know what else is privileged? Company affiliation! I noticed my
>opinion at IETF was discounted considerably when I left Cisco for a
>start-up. Not part of the influential crowd anymore. So I'm keenly
>aware of privilege at the IETF, don't worry about that.

The discussion (please see topic) in another 
venue, which is unrelated to the IETF, turned 
into a United Stated v/s rest of the world 
arguments.  I didn't understand why you took a 
strong position until I read your latest 
messages.  For what it worth, I understood some 
of the arguments in your review, e.g. the $64 
required to access the first two references.

>>3. You keep demanding evidence, even after 
>>several people have agreed there is a problem 
>>here.  There's a word for this style of debate: 
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
>
>   Oh, so several people agreeing closes off discussion, no evidence needed,
>just a "I'm standing up for the little guy".
>
>   I guess those several people are in the "in crowd", the privileged ones.
>They are so privileged they merely need to refer to their existence to
>squelch debate. Impressive!

It was customary to close a discussion or ignore 
a question when someone asked something which was 
inconvenient, e.g. a modicum of data, evidence, 
etc.  I came across that for 7704.  There is more 
than one problem in the thread.  I would not bother to locate them.

At 10:15 AM 07-08-2020, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>This thread was not here until recently, and yet throngs of newcomers
>were not then clamoring to join the IETF then, who are now staying away
>(for reasons other than COVID-19 restrictions).  The discussion has
>actually been mostly tame, at worst at times somewhat pedantic, with a
>bit of sophistry here and there, but likely even mellower than on some
>of the more contentious technical issues.

There isn't any evidence that newcomers stayed 
away because of this thread.  At the same time, 
it is unlikely that someone new to mailing lists 
would post a message on the thread.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy