IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 9EE523A0FE5; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 9upwBqJX9KG0; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0CA63A1026; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D5A9280CF4; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:49:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200728160033.GE3100@localhost>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <50dd00b6-a044-ae48-b048-196b28182fb4@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:49:01 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200728160033.GE3100@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iS7nN-pP-iW3vB1IuAuCJnUTcKU>
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:50:26 -0000

On 28/7/20 13:00, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:35:45AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
> 
> I'm surprised not to find there anything like a survey of RFCs, current
> I-Ds, and maybe even expired I-Ds, of problematic language.  

Well, for the time being, my understanding is that the list itself of 
what's considered "offensive language" is being produced.


> Or any
> analysis of the prevalence of problematic language and trends in its
> use.

There's empirical evidence that such language has been used.



>  Did we use to have a problem that we now no longer have?

If the use of such language is considered a problem, then yes, that 
still happens. And since people come and go, whatever has happened in 
the past may be different from what happens in the future. So I'm not 
sure to what extent that would be relevant.



>  Do we still have a problem? 

Part of the problem, I guess, is the definition of "we". e.g., since the 
vast majority of IETF participants are white, probably the answer to "do 
we have a problem?" will, from that perspective, be "no".

Similarly, most folks will have no problems with the use of 
"balkanization", since the vast majority of participants are not from 
the balkans.

And most folks will be happy to use "third-world countries" or the like, 
since most participants are from what are typically considered 
"developed countries".


> Is it getting better or worse?
> 
> Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to perform such a survey?

IMO, that would be like overengineering the isue, but....



> (The RPC presumably would only survey RFCs, not I-Ds.)

Actually, if such survey were to be done, it should probably done on 
RFC, I-Ds, and mailing lists. Because, if such language is offensive, it 
doesn't matter the specific status of the document that uses it, or 
whether it's a mailing-list post as opposed to an actual document.

Just my two cents,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email