Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone,
I'll keep this short (I’m not even sure it’s going to reach the mailing list.)

It is incredible that this is how the IESG has acted to intimidate and silence one of the only minorities that even bothered to say anything in this entire discussion. I’ve never played the “minority card” before in my career but I feel compelled to today because this is the first time where I actually felt I was owed a voice on a topic given that everyone insisted that it affects people like me, only to see myself not only silenced but also intimidated and falsely accused of a “pattern of abuse”. The behavior or the IESG on this topic has been shocking, unprecedented and authoritarian. I believe that there is an instance of ideologically motivated corruption happening here and intend to follow up on this within the IETF.

In their original message banning me, Alissa wrote:
> Nadim Kobeissi has engaged in a pattern of abuse based on
> their recent substantive messages to this list

In her email a few hours ago unbanning me, Alissa wrote:
> My view is that the threads on this list about terminology in
> IETF documents represented a pattern of abuse per RFC 3005

And yet I feel like it’s important to point out that the words “pattern of abuse” were not used to chastise or otherwise describe *any* of the many participants in this thread or the other thread. I wonder what RFC 7776 will have to say about this.

I wanted to provide links to all my postings on this topic so that people could independently verify where the “abuse” occurred:

1. Email expressing disapproval of the IESG’s presumed position on behalf of the IETF and the entire subject, with what I am sure was respectful and substantive feedback: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XKikRaujzMZw7-tkz7WnQHbB2mk/
2. Email questioning the workability of policing terms such as “black” and “white” by drawing analogies to other fields: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/giHnigpaA5aZ-RHhpuZ9J9gS9xk/
3. Email questioning the application of RFC 3005 and providing more perspective, entirely drawn based on my minority background, to contest the IESG’s handling of this entire issue and to express great concern regarding the behavior of IETF leadership: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
4. Email sarcastically objecting to my being chided for the previous email by the SaA (sarcastic, yes, but extremely short and I’m sorry to say, not at all qualificatory as a “pattern of abuse”): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fRi97MQxvKq6jNy1EFILFh3_dxI/

I want to make it very clear in my own defense: I never engaged in any lengthy back and forth, any argumentativeness, any toxicity, any trolling, etc. of any kind. And yet I feel Alissa has strongly attempted to paint me in that light and I wonder why that is. This sort of blanked insult is repeated in Alissa’s recent email:

> 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. 

Perhaps those whose houses are made of glass should not throw stones. I do not see where it is that I have lacked empathy, and yet I see no empathy in the choice to falsely drive out a minority as engaging in a “pattern of abuse” for respectfully participating in a discussion about the usage of so-called oppressive and exclusionary language.

Some may wonder whether I have anything constructive to say regarding how to manage terminology going forward. Here’s a suggestion:

After consultations with the IETF’s governing bodies and obtaining with them a consensus, the IESG could send a statement proposing a list of *voluntary, optional suggestions* for the authors of future RFCs to avoid the usage of certain words, including a list of those words. Each word should be accompanied by a short explanation for its inclusion in the list, and citations justifying that explanation, preferably from competent civil or academic bodies.

The IESG should stress both at the beginning and end of the statement that this is all *completely voluntary and optional*, and that measures would be taken to ensure that RFCs and IETF members are not treated differently should they decide to follow or not follow the suggestions made in this statement. Those are just my two cents on how to best move forward on this.

Finally I want to strongly encourage people not to give up on the IETF just yet, not to unsubscribe from the mailing list, etc. — this isn’t worth it and the path forward will hopefully be through more radical transparency, open discussions and a liberal and truly intellectual approach free from proselytisation and religious argumentation.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 7:29 AM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 8/13/20 12:31 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> Given the level of unprofessional discourse in the muted conversation,
>> muting the entire topic seems like an entirely appropriate recourse.
> 
> FWIW I support moving the discussion (we do that all the time)
> and do not support the SAA's message shutting down criticism of
> the decision to move the discussion.  It's disappointing to see
> the two things being conflated, but tends to support my growing
> belief that the IETF is irredeemable.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> [e-mail]
> 
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>