Re: Terminology discussion threads
Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software> Thu, 13 August 2020 13:58 UTC
Return-Path: <nadim@symbolic.software>
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 044DD3A0C53 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:56 -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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=symbolic.software
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 hmvzsBwve5ML for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 DEE243A0C50 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id p20so5403682wrf.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=symbolic.software; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=N+2lVS/q9+EYRFGOungPtd3IZHyPcG5W/lKVornFv54=; b=aSInoJRAScyljWABKWjfbAkiDhYGEpDS1J+gngIHbanrHuK5o8Xy69WCSl8ucHaDp7 8oUpyRJa+jlI0ozkhf92T/tcdVwMrOIhP0O3iZosswnrCwS0SBwkOnGySx/FP29pFch/ vMgO8wh45VahZc+gGR4kvFUGkgbdKqnGF6Z6A=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=N+2lVS/q9+EYRFGOungPtd3IZHyPcG5W/lKVornFv54=; b=Jq3ZZJFbPtlveoJJnIBXUJEkYo6xQaaMiSgENCCpAtkmaorxgrBQx9MMsvgeonUbdc d1mY/cytRhZrRgDtnfv0bXWNnHbCLp1IOo7Bw2UXvu2goP7u4lTCUdBCnislLqd7bCBu 2o0Zr3afOWUYlwSH4/nwXmoM99iVszYgnyRgziV8ANbcb/w9kLPA9ZYH2+0MGLuC21Oe fjhXTF5Nl8AmHNfONDibnhqohgCbLOhQJKsCdcQP6skw86jUGuH5XeCBiysV0HuTM9AG +yj48kEPXIY7pOxb7IZjxyfsHpGFuuJ76jnWTECO5sFkicpX7O2V9GCmfAFU7qoxzLbn czvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wzhEZIoHndmlMJU0p+8Lurf1yV7OyOBzfVihnXWiAODCMH0V2 zmzVwO9Mb5aDM7DamXgm6Jiy/YHfK9AznA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8VN/Vwlysmgoxpgxs8W5Nh20GuvPZSGqAdlm3OZAne0cQc/UroRYuKCidHKcualcgyjHsZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4802:: with SMTP id l2mr4003832wrq.183.1597327131997; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([176.160.172.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q7sm9818209wra.56.2020.08.13.06.58.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3652.0.5.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
From: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>
In-Reply-To: <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:58:50 +0200
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <223A1539-30B0-424A-89D1-A968FFD4C140@symbolic.software> <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org>
To: saa@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3652.0.5.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fRi97MQxvKq6jNy1EFILFh3_dxI>
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: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:58:56 -0000
I see that the emails from others above expressing *approval* for the IESG are not receiving correctional visits from the SAA, so I wanted to make sure that I expressed myself in The Correct Manner moving forward: +1! I agree with Alissa! Thank you for taking this action! Excellent, thank you! Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 13 Aug 2020, at 3:50 PM, IETF Sergeant at Arms <saa@ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team (described in more detail at [1]) has been in touch with Nadim Kobeissi off-list concerning their recent message [2] to ietf@ietf.org under a new subject line but on the same topic against the direction from the IETF Chair [3]. We encourage everyone to review the IETF discussion list charter [4] and our SOP [5]. > > Thanks, > Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/ > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t6AZcMH2S_YtldSNBlaNwPfO_P8/ > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005 > [5] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md > > On 13/08/20 6:38 pm, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: >> RFC 3005 mentions that the following topics determine what constitute inappropriate postings to the mailing list: >> - Unsolicited bulk e-mail >> - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, >> activities, or technical concerns >> - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject >> - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not >> sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. >> The discussion on terminology falls into none of the above categories. In contrast, the following is listed clearly as an appropriate topic of discussion: >> - Discussion of IETF administrative policies >> The discussion of a proposal to revise the fundamental language, even into the past, used by the IETF due to political and ideological reasons espoused by some IETF members in the United States seems like a pretty important IETF administrative policy issue. >> Furthermore, there appears to be an exceptional lack of consensus on this issue. Despite the IESG’s insistence that >>> …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. >> , we appear to be far from such consensus. And despite the IESG asserting that >>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, >> , the discussion is explicitly banned by the IESG when it appeared that the broader IETF did not at all appreciate or agree with fundamental notions of language attributed to the IETF by the IESG based on what appears to be a complete detachment from reality. >> As an Arab immigrant I have never seen any of my peers even consider harm from words such as “master” or “blacklist”. >> And yet, I can assure you that we have a deeply-etched understanding of the signs of cultural totalitarianism, otherization, demonization and the breakdown of institutions and discourse in favor of political fanaticism. >> I have been working on protocols for many years and I do not exaggerate when I say that I am existentially frightened by what I am seeing happen in technological institutions and working groups. >> I deeply oppose the IESG’s conduct regarding this matter and express worry for what is to come for the open, free and *truly* inclusive nature of our communities. >> Finally, I feel great remorse at seeing bad faith automatically attributed to anyone who questions the long-term implications of these views being declared uniformly as “true” of the IETF by the IESG, and I regret to see the discussion shuttered like this. >> Nadim Kobeissi >> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software >>> On 11 Aug 2020, at 8:02 PM, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> 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 ietf@ietf.org 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 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. 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 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. 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 ietf@ietf.org 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 ietf@ietf.org 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 ietf@ietf.org, the poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of posting rights from ietf@ietf.org. >>> >>> 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 ietf@ietf.org 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 >>> >>> >
- 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