Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 04:23:34PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> On reading your reply I was reminded of a recommendation (made several years
> ago) to get more non-native English-speaking people in one of the review
> teams.  It was probably not implemented for unknown reasons.  The language
> experts are actually the people within the RFC Editor Function (it is not
> the RSE who does that work).

I would think that a good editor will try to find all the good arguments
why a particular choice of language is not his/her owns but drawn from
some good practice with known references. In this case we are talking about,
they would either find such from (1) other communities, (2) guidelines
established by ITEF community or (3) claim that they can't do anything because
they could not find enough guidance.

I was suggesting processes for (2) (nomcom style community rule establishment).
I am mostly worried about the occurance of some extreme forms of (1) at this
point, but then again, i am paranoid.

> In theory, the whole community has a say in policies.  That is not how it
> worked in practice.  I don't know whether the idea which you proposed would
> work as I am not involved in execution.

Yes, but i also think all of this can develop over time. First round IMHO
it would be nice to have a place where to collect language choice taken
in the process of the RFCs from now on. Without attempting to have a more
formalized process.

> > gaming the process also into account. Aka: selective aggregation of
> > received opinions from the list, moving decisions to different forums than
> > email where the weight of pro/con would be known different, etc. pp.
> 
> It is up to the IESG to decide about the above.

Indeed.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

-- 
---
[e-mail]