Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for taking this action.  I think taking this to a GENDISPATCH
interim is a good alternative venue for the next steps here.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:03 AM IETF Chair <[e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail] [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 [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail] 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail], the
> poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of
> posting rights from [e-mail].
>
> 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
> [e-mail] 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
>
>
>