Re: Terminology discussion threads
Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Wed, 12 August 2020 16:16 UTC
Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 1D5243A13AB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ub8LrYCBnTzz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (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 F2D6D3A13AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net (cpe-76-176-14-122.san.res.rr.com [76.176.14.122]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.8 #2433) with ESMTP id <0QEY2GR1VL7PWV@wwwlocal.goatley.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:16:37 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Dans-MacBook-Pro.local ([69.12.173.8]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #2433) with ESMTPSA id <0QEY00B3XL7K1D@trixy.bergandi.net> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net ([69.12.173.8] EXTERNAL) (EHLO Dans-MacBook-Pro.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:32 -0700
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:16:36 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
In-reply-to: <43d648d2-cd9c-ec67-a60c-8d4be2c1836b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-id: <c819aa7d-94f5-6d65-ea51-8d102eea57c0@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=69.12.173.8)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net [69.12.173.8] (EHLO Dans-MacBook-Pro.local)
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <43d648d2-cd9c-ec67-a60c-8d4be2c1836b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [200810] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/e7NDsBS32XZRaLpuQTkQHfzaX5w>
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:16:40 -0000
+1 On 8/12/20 12:50 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > IETF Chair wrote: > >> 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. > > That IESG made such statement without IETF consensus is wrong > and is the most efficient way to harm IETF. > > In the statement, IESG even stated: > > > The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are > > not uniform. > > which means IESG is actively aware that there is no IETF consensus. > >> Since the publication of the July 23 IESG statement, there has been >> significant discussion of this topic on ietf@ietf.org as well as >> discussion of a related Internet-draft, > > It is partly because, IESG stated in the statement that: > > > The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, > > Now, how can you say you don't want to hear from the community? > > Because oppositions from the community is far more stronger > than you expected? If so, it's time for IESG to admit its > statement not based on IETF consensus is just wrong, which is > the way to avoid further harming IETF. > >> One >> suggestion made on ietf@ietf.org [1] that received support from other >> members of the community was to explore and reference how other >> organizations and communities are approaching this issue. > > Why don't you quote the relevant part of [1]? > > In [1]. it is written that: > > : So what I think would be good would be to have a list of words > : and phrases that external communities (e.g., governments, > : universities, corporations) are either forbidding or > : recommending against. > > and because many, including me, are against to have the list > itself, we just said we are against to have the list itself > without specifically arguing against detailed way to have > the list. > > That "that received support from other members of the > community" deforms the reality. > >> The continued ietf@ietf.org email list discussion on this topic is >> not benefitting anyone and is actively harmful in our collective >> pursuit of an inclusive and respectful IETF. > > IETF was already badly harmed by IESG's statement actively > ignoring IETF consensus. > > That we can confirm it through IETF mailing list discussion > does not mean the discussion is harming IETF any worse. > > > By contrast, the brief > > discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108 > > was cordial and constructive. > > "brief"? Then, there shouldn't have been any real discussion. > > > 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. > > Of course. Though you wrote something about your opinion on result > of GENDISPATCH session, S Moonesamy wrote to you: > > : There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the mailing > : list. I could not find any message pertaining to that in the relevant > : mailing list archives. What are the actions items? > > You didn't give any answer, which is interpreted by anyone familiar > with IETF process to mean that the result of the session is not > yet formally obtained and your opinion on the yet-non-existent > result should better be ignored. > > As such, your request on August 7 was not constructive one. > > Masataka Ohta >
- Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lars Eggert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ted Hardie
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lloyd Wood
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (CORRECTION) Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Masataka Ohta
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Duke
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Wendy Seltzer
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ofer Inbar
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Randy Bush
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Heflin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Charlie Perkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Kyle Rose
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bob Hinden
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nick Hilliard
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Pete Resnick
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- SaA Team actions (was: Re: Terminology discussion… John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Alissa Cooper
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Wouters
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Thomson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Rob Sayre
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bron Gondwana
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Christian Huitema
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Self-moderation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jen Linkova
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jared Mauch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- RE: Terminology discussion threads Larry Masinter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Weekly message summaries John Levine
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Fernando Gont
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Warren Kumari
- On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Miles Fidelman
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: On plenary functions Jay Daley
- Re: On plenary functions Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Self-moderation Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Self-moderation John Levine
- Re: On plenary functions Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Patrik Fältström
- Re: On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jay Daley
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Weekly message summaries Töma Gavrichenkov