Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any result would 
have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than just the IETF.  (To 
avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).

On 8/8/2020 5:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> I disagree with this approach.
>
> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international experts on technical language and the editors of other major standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us with a recommendation.
>
> Stewart
>
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 22:22, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually I’d like to suggest something different before anyone else responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week. The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let’s give it a rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Viktor,
>>>
>>>> On 08-Aug-20 07:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>>> ....
>>>> So the proposed reforms are not an
>>>> objective net good.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed cultural revolution...
>>> I have no idea what you are referring to. All I have seen is an IESG statement including the words:
>>>
>>>>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in
>>>>> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this
>>>>> issue going forward.
>>> Please explain how that amounts to "proposed reforms" or "proposed cultural revolution".
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>   Brian
>>>