Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:37:43PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:

> >  Indeed perhaps the institution of prior restraint of speech
> 
> There are certain words that society thinks are not good. For example,
> on this list, if someone says "Rich that is really stupid, go f--k
> off" that might cause the SAA to contact the poster. Is that prior
> restraint of speech as well?  Or is that phrase being used to mark
> things you just don't agree with?  Are you opposed to all evolution of
> language?  If not, how do you think it happens?

I'm fine with evolution of language, be it at times with resignation
about lost distincitions, that make it more difficult to express nuance.

I used the phrase "prior restraint" with care.  There's a difference
between being restrained and choosing restraint.  Good communication
is facilitated by the latter.

> We don't know who is not here contributing. We have anecdotal evidence
> that some find if off-putting. Some of that is reaction to the
> community reaction when changes are proposed.

The anecdotal evidence is just that.  There are blatantly obvious
barriers that actually shape IETF membership, that no rearranging
of the deck chairs on the Titanic can touch:

    - Participation is costly, in time, energy and even (prior
      to COVID) $$$ to to attend meetings in expensive hotels,
      pay for expensive dinners out with colleagues, ...

    - Participation often requires a lot of background knowledge
      in multiple disciplines that takes to accumulate.  One needs
      to be able to defend one's views in the company of seasoned
      experts.  This biases the membership towards mid to late
      career engineers, and suitably funded academics.

    - Access to educational opportunities, mentoring, ... and also
      ultimately personal interests and talent are rather uneven,
      biasing who goes on to become an engineer or academic, ...

The proposed reforms do nothing to address this.  I see tham as
symbolic, not substantive, and also exclusionary in the name of
inclusion and condescending in the name of fighting oppression.

I see evidence that others share similar views, and would find the new
normal oppressive/exclusionary.  So the proposed reforms are not an
objective net good.

The proposed cultural revolution promotes (exclusionary) privilege
shaming, which I've already seen abused in this thread, but it is
best to not draw attention to each and every transgression (thogh
I can point out some blatant cases if you don't believe me).

-- 
    Viktor.