Re: Terminology discussion threads

IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Fri, 14 August 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <chair@ietf.org>
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 23F743A0BE6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 S8UnDJ-m8phq; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alcoop-m-c46z.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-101-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.101.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C3063A0BE3; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 21:48:30 -0400
Reply-To: gendispatch@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6AA0BCBB-D95B-4036-B94D-5E79E7B94D75@ietf.org>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TNGwpRvCclf2gP5Bw2r-7pjzA6k>
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:48:51 -0000

Hi all,

It’s clear from the list traffic today that the process described in my message below is unworkable because the interpretation of "substantive message on this same topic” is subjective rather than objective. My apologies for the mistake. I’ve asked the secretariat to unblock the three threads listed below and restore Nadim Kobeissi’s posting privileges. Given time zones, I expect these changes will not take effect until Friday.

My view is that the threads on this list about terminology in IETF documents represented a pattern of abuse per RFC 3005. The substance and tone of the messages -- collectively -- were so difficult to bear reading that as a public communications channel, the discussion on ietf@ietf.org was abusing anyone who chose to start reading the emails. At this point I don’t think there is a message of any kind, whether in support of or against or orthogonal to the draft or the IESG statement, that will help IETF participants make progress towards some kind of resolution on this topic until the gendispatch interim (including this message itself). I have nevertheless set the reply-to of this message to gendispatch@ietf.org in case anyone thinks that will help with anything. Going forward I will be doing the minimum required of my role to guide the discussion.

I believe we wind up in this kind of situation over and over because IETF participants have no shared norms about respecting each other or demonstrating empathy towards one another. With no norms about respecting one another as human beings, no value assigned to composing thoughtful replies, and no expectation of simply treating each other with kindness on the list, our discussions devolve into toxic, snarky, knee-jerk back-and-forth. Without norms, processes like the one established in RFC 3005 are not worth much.

Last night I made a start on the repo resource mentioned below, with help from Mallory and Richard: <https://github.com/ietf/terminology>. People should feel free to do with it what they wish. I don’t want to control the content but I don’t have time tonight to sort out the admin roles in the repo. I will figure it out later and remove myself as an admin.

Regarding the IESG statement, my personal view is that it is a statement of belief of the 15 people on the IESG. That is the whole point of IESG statements. It is not a statement of consensus of the IETF -- if we wanted to publish a consensus statement, we would write an RFC. The statement said we were looking forward to hearing from the community on the topic, and I think there was a small part of me that was looking forward to it amidst the sea of dread I felt about winding up in a toxic no-win situation on the list like the one we're in now, once again. I still have a sliver of hope about progress to be made at the gendispatch interim and beyond. Personally, my belief about the use of certain terminology in technical documents being harmful is unchanged.

For avoidance of doubt, the SAA actions on this list to date are the responsibility of the SAA team under my leadership, and not the responsibility of the IESG. So no one should attribute SAA actions to the IESG.

I'm going on vacation tomorrow and I won't be reading or responding to email until I return.

Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair


> On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:02 PM, IETF Chair <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 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 [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 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 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 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, the poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of posting rights from 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 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 
> 
>