Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 26 July 2020 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 CE82D3A0AB3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:35 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=gmail.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 qrjtZvwScW6Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17FF33A0AB1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id t6so6462968plo.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5aMT2sVepXopPgiT9S0ec+b40kJu1ols0MMnftGpvpE=; b=oBMmzPT/NbR+1j/0eKIF8TNvRDB+F8IAbExOOzjbq5tlpESK/WrhL6kFaPVIiSFFqJ 9ZEKdy+zKI2vIF2WS7Y51tNg2pURp97CDx1La9E4s+XKR4r4aPmpiTrZY7uUqhrPcMnG 5Wf2dxcEALgooFyc+jYoOlyJOEJsLMIfzdo/lq+aNDHasG69KV5WNqmJS2l/uYbAH1h9 68d6yyT3SU+pVik8WJGKa5dVuXsG2O4EWl+3ZuK21ycsLKKfsBFZOxC0UPTOvnEhEw36 Q6Zj5sExPKoJ9ySYmQEYyamor9UkpxFaUDu1OxdXAPtBkh9qWydomLnGEUDXRL4UpnEO sFnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5aMT2sVepXopPgiT9S0ec+b40kJu1ols0MMnftGpvpE=; b=qGb4nynEBTYMlZTf9ewFYtPB7A94indMImhWg+Uegnn/80RqnIuQelXKD/RUyqa3yC WuZ/fQn9l5yRzOUSZfDXrm36++u5c934QJNrWCwXl7+oc9FKL26Al103yud8/za+6czM yxBRPWcWdrFMxT+ZevGVtljJWz15k4os+ptgZl8cvO+gWerw3Vy8EqZmRgGiU4PfK92V 7olUo6tExsVB0+LpM3hYDdzlJTfdJU/K2T05XL2p4xrDY7r0fOGFoluZf9emsV/5ME/I 5SCH84US97i0sA8EyRUGOy+m960DmWWPhjWgDl8Dw/KppJZnZcbafowdm87ST2S8Toc3 pyLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306cGQS+FDfG3ewNZsGNDfpMWPRRMhmGlDwRJ7ae3I4RIRUgSDi kVzovgldoHEFyxkZNusBQMOvY8IP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxrsmUKEMFKmWNcKZp7qxHP2qstrJq9CrvxxeX9b3lB57L/R5sdY6s7NezMc6LipLUZ1PLvfQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:8d6:: with SMTP id ds22mr12891506pjb.145.1595738012244; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13sm9689170pjy.40.2020.07.25.21.33.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <1cfa41c4-2877-2462-e5cc-325e67056d00@lounge.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec8c9c50-075e-98c7-9557-488aa7fddf5b@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:33:27 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1cfa41c4-2877-2462-e5cc-325e67056d00@lounge.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fLr54pBUevsk4Gj_vJC4BzmhYPg>
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, 26 Jul 2020 04:33:36 -0000

Dan,

I will probably regret responding other by simply saying +1 to Joel, but here goes.

On 26-Jul-20 15:25, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/23/20 9:35 AM, The IESG wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>    Well then the IESG is confused. Language cannot be harmful. It can
> hurt ones feelings but it cannot cause harm because feelings are just
> that...feeling.

So emotional harm isn't "harm" in your book? I think you will find that
most people disagree.
 
>    This is a classic "First World Problem" where affluent people who lack
> serious life problems create drama in order to provide meaning to their
> lives. 

A pretty amazing remark, when the developed world has been forced to all
but shut down for several months by a virus that is now starting to
run free in the developing world. No drama there, huh?

> So now we are being told that words that cause harm? For whom? Well
> these First World People are identifying other communities (by race, by
> ethnicity) who they declare are harmed by their language.
> 
>    How arrogant! How patronizing! The Vision of the Anointed, indeed.

Whereas I suppose your vision is beyond dispute?

>> The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are
>> not uniform. Determining an actionable policy regarding problematic
>> language is an ongoing process. We wanted to highlight that initial
>> discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a
>> draft [1] is slated for discussion in GENDISPATCH [2] at IETF 108).
>> Updating terminology in previously published RFCs is a complex endeavor,
>> while making adjustments in the language used in our documents in the
>> future should be more straightforward.
>>
>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in
>> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this
>> issue going forward.
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-gendispatch-03
> 
>    How about no? Just stop. No need for an "ongoing process" to determine
> "actionable policy regarding problematic language". [1] is a horrible
> document that engages in unprofessional personal attack and brings the
> cancer of "cancel culture" to the IETF.

I've read it, and I've felt no personal attack whatever, despite being an
elderly privileged white male who has certainly written documents in
the past using master/slave and blacklist/whitelist terminology. I've simply
decided to slightly adjust my detector of unprofessional writing as a result.
The draft certainly needs more work and critical review, but that's why
it's called a "draft", after all.

>    Critical race theory is a pile of excrement

Thanks for pointing me to this interesting topic. It appears to be a
purely American and principally legal theory. The only person who has
ever mentioned it in the IETF is you, as far as Google knows. Since the
IETF is international and neither writes nor interprets American laws,
it seems startlingly irrelevant, which is probably why...

> and [1] builds an entire 
> house
> on top of the foundation of critical race theory. 

... that is untrue. It doesn't mention or cite CRT. Neither do any of the
documents of the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group.
Neither does Google find any direct association of Mallory Knodel or
Niels ten Oever with CRT. (That is to say, I found articles that refer
both to CRT and to Mallory's and Niels' work, but disjointly.)

> It should have no place in
> the IETF.

Assuming "it" means CRT, we completely agree on that, but it's irrelevant
to the discussion at hand.

Regards,
     Brian Carpenter