Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Sun, 04 April 2021 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 31FD83A1C12 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 01:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=open-xchange.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 oCc0S1qEti88 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 01:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B113A1C0C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 01:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imap.open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE1BA6A260; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 10:03:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1617523422; bh=s9JYsO/emm0EbkfFc2esZrl20ciOoR+HtEDGUD8MZlg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=YcwoCoaMlMSMmvuoFPdimHjZ0jrBbE+d23k/8GyOCeFpox5+V7p9WdjYiB8Iz3wq2 KQhxpds1H1hdR6iGnAMvkDZxEC/I7wCAuOGEfhHUIvBfKMef+R+3zkDnq73l/FmcBg sDjpqak9LHZCyeGR1eDyd9deTwadW/X0P4qfo2cy6d1DG0Xr+Nw8QG6T0K9CcD1Cw4 dYbG7jadPUlTzbIFsqU+4El9WA6y8wmqxDMh8cka84CQ02pCAS4tRkzioePb5Ygt6n 8JqCFNZqpD6wsilZsUjcRceN7lKQfTht97eqFG75++OvR5BOI9Wc9vpqhE+2hbqr58 0JOrSZKV2B4yQ==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com ([10.20.28.82]) by imap.open-xchange.com with ESMTPSA id 2rlLLt5yaWByTAAA3c6Kzw (envelope-from <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>); Sun, 04 Apr 2021 10:03:42 +0200
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 10:03:42 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <49934733.26370.1617523422670@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev8
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_ZYMpw8VwNrMa9EUV-AcZe8JbbQ>
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: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 08:03:52 -0000


> Il 02/04/2021 05:20 Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> ha scritto:
> 
>  
> [obligatory disclosure: this is not a statement of the IESG, and I did not
> consult with any of my fellow ADs on its content before sending.  It is
> shaped in part by some discussions we had, but the opinions expressed are
> my own.]

[similarly, what I said and will say in this thread is entirely in personal capacity]

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and the willingness to explain. Personally, if I had been the IESG, I would just have ignored Wood's draft, recognizing his right to free expression and the right of other people (including IESG members) to think poorly of him. This is a subjective judgement; in doubt, I tend to err on the side of free speech, but I see why the IESG could rather think that the IETF as a whole should officially condemn the document.

Given what you say on the unproductivity of satirical tones within the IETF's context of technical standardization, if I were the IESG, I would consider discontinuing the April 1st tradition for the future or constraining its scope much more clearly. If all contributions must be serious, respectful and useful, satire - which is offensive by definition - has no place among them; satire on the IETF can be published elsewhere. I would however not put the IESG in the position of telling "acceptable", authority-sanctioned satire from "offensive" satire; that is typically the role of censors in non-democratic regimes. Again, this may be a matter of my subjective sensitivity.

Also, I have no idea of what was in the two drafts that have been censored, but if they contained hate speech, it was absolutely appropriate to remove them. I am actually happy to see the IETF recognize that there must be limits to free expression on the Internet and that, sometimes, mechanisms for removing or blocking content must exist. This, if one, is the positive effect of this incident.

I think that we should just move on and continue with the work on terminology - which, notwithstanding the different methodological views on how to intervene, is an important piece of the picture - and with the work on all other obstacles against diversity, for which I hope we will soon get to a working group.

-- 
   - vb.