Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,
At 04:27 AM 10-08-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>I was primarily thinking about the the fact that the whole community should
>be able to claim to have a say in the policies, eve if they are non-native
>english speaker.
>
>I fully agree that the execution of the policies through just current
>feedback to last-call mailing list would just result in randomn subsets of
>the community getting involved, and primarily native english speakers.
>
>Hence i think the policy should be to
>ensure that there is a neutral, community selected set of language experts
>that executive the community desired policy. I was recommending a nomcom
>style election process for them as one possible way to achieve this. I
>could perfectly think of pairs of native english speakers in the community
>that would cancel each others extreme views of lanugage out, thinking it
>could result in good compromise language....

On reading your reply I was reminded of a recommendation (made 
several years ago) to get more non-native English-speaking people in 
one of the review teams.  It was probably not implemented for unknown 
reasons.  The language experts are actually the people within the RFC 
Editor Function (it is not the RSE who does that work).

In theory, the whole community has a say in policies.  That is not 
how it worked in practice.  I don't know whether the idea which you 
proposed would work as I am not involved in execution.

>IMHO not much different from what i was saying. I just took the means of

Yes.

>gaming the process also into account. Aka: selective aggregation of
>received opinions from the list, moving decisions to different forums than
>email where the weight of pro/con would be known different, etc. pp.

It is up to the IESG to decide about the above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy