Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <[e-mail]>]

Indeed. That is the point I tried to make.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 16:53 Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Maybe we want to run some kind of threat modeling before we put in place a
> tool like that. I am concerned that "the road to hell is paved with good
> intentions." For example, if there is a process like that, what is the
> guarantee that some dictatorial regimes do not use it to enforce party-line
> recommendations? And of course, no dictatorial regime will ever admit that
> they are a dictature...
>
> -- Christian Huitema
> On 7/29/2020 12:35 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>
> Hi Victor,
>
> I think I may not have described what I was suggesting clearly enough. I
> wasn’t proposing any fixed (i.e., MANDATORY or MUST) rules. I was trying to
> avoid problems caused by the perception that people inside IETF would be
> identifying what words were problematic (using their own subjective
> criteria, and where the decision makers are not members of the demographics
> perceived to be slighted by the words), and that use of these words would
> be strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
> Let me make my suggestion more concretely:
>
>
>
> There exists a list (not an IANA list, but maybe on tools or datatracker).
>
> This list has 2 columns:
>
> Word or Phrase  |  Reference(s)
>
>
>
> The Reference(s) column has references to websites where entities IETF
> considers important are asking for the word or phrase not to be used in
> documentation or publications that they have some element of control over.
> It can be delimited (comma or semi-colon) so a word that is referenced by
> multiple entities can have multiple references.
>
>
>
> The Word column could have a tool (like idnits) developed against it such
> that authors, shepherds, or anyone else can directly run the check and
> there is no need for WG chairs or GenArt reviewers to be held responsible
> for knowing all the words on the list or running the tool.
>
>
>
> It is only RECOMMENDED that these words not be used. The authors are being
> asked to make a **conscious** decision to use the words, knowing some
> people somewhere may have issues in certain contexts. The authors are also
> provided references so they can know who it is who has issues and in what
> context. But it can also happen that a reviewer or RFC editor decides to
> run the check and asks the authors if use of the words was intentional. The
> authors can say “Yes”, and that’s the end of it (until the next person asks
> and they say “Yes” again). “Yes, use of these words is intentional” is
> valid; which means publication of a RFC isn’t denied just because it
> contains those words.
>
>
>
> But lists like this don’t just magically spawn. There needs to be a
> process for creating/updating the list. I think anyone should be able to
> suggest adding a word or phrase. But they have to provide a reference where
> an entity describes how that entity deals with occurrences of that word or
> phrase. The suggester can also provide additional references for existing
> entries. Some people do need to look at the suggestion and make a decision
> as to whether the referenced website is sufficiently relevant to IETF and
> belongs on the list.
>
>
>
> I think this is manageable with relatively low overhead, and it doesn’t
> censor use of the words. It merely asks people to make an informed and
> conscious decision to use the words. And the list of words to be careful
> about is explicit and known.
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> *From:* Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:11 AM
> *To:* STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
>
>
>
> Barbara,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Not replying to any particular email, but to the general discussion...
>
> It seems to me that IETF isn't in a good position to natively determine
> what words are "problematic". So what I think would be good would be to
> have a list of words and phrases that external communities (e.g.,
> governments, universities, corporations) are either forbidding or
> recommending against. Include a reference to the external community's web
> page where they discuss this. RECOMMEND not using words in this list. Allow
> anyone to suggest having something added to the list; suggestion must
> include the reference. Have a small team that vets the request (makes sure
> the reference works and judges whether the referenced community reflects a
> community that IETF should consider reflecting -- which is still a judgment
> call, but I think identifying whether a community is (or should be)
> important to IETF members is easier than judging whether someone who
> doesn't share your experiences might be offended by a word or phrase) and
> decides whether or not to add it to the list. An existing team, like the
> Ombudsteam, might be tasked with this.
>
> The RFC Editor doesn't need to police the use of these words. Allow for
> IETF community self-policing to decide whether a WG or independent stream
> author really want to use a word or phrase, given its presence on this list.
>
> For example, consider Apple as a reasonable reference.
> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=1o9zxsxl
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developer.apple.com_news_-3Fid-3D1o9zxsxl&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=KGQ1RQlq8czTXz492w-8fak_ka8kxLlHRSTeBzQXbLU&s=Eh4QhnAGng9GaqjLRoNUv_dscuCVaUSBQ2PvbDw3akM&e=>
>
> Specifically, for "master/slave" or "blacklist/whitelist", look at
> https://help.apple.com/applestyleguide/#/apsg72b28652
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__help.apple.com_applestyleguide_-23_apsg72b28652&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=KGQ1RQlq8czTXz492w-8fak_ka8kxLlHRSTeBzQXbLU&s=N3_-r7Tw9dSLr5jiyEQXbLKL8arC4XWS7EMeGEiKNQM&e=>
> and go to master/slave or blacklist/whitelist in the alphabetical list
>
>
>
> Since this is such a problematic topic, I was wondering if there is a more
> subtle way to slowly address this with as little pain as possible.  People
> may get upset that I am making this suggestion, however here it is.
>
>
>
> 1. WG Chairs (since we read the docs anyway), flag a doc for GenART review
> if words are in it that may need to be scrutinized  (AD can also ask for
> that review)
>
> 2. As part of that directorate  review (or we create a new directorate for
> this? ) we flag / make recommendations on alterative words/phrases if needed
>
>
>
> Seems like this would work without the need to pre-agree.  That team can
> then look to key external references as input.  Over time, with some
> experience behind us (from actual reviews and updates), we can then apply
> our knowledge and experience to the problem to see if it makes sense to
> create more fixed rules on this.  Perhaps this is too late in the process
> to do such changes.  it would also incentive authors and WG chairs to
> pre-vet for this in as part of normal document creation.  We have lots of
> time to make this part of normal WG review anyway.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Victor K
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apple participates actively in IETF and does good work here -- so it is
> important to IETF.
>
> References don't have to all point to US entities -- any term/reference
> can be proposed to be added to the list from any geography/country.
>
> If there is a good reference for RECOMMENDING against the use of "folks"
> or "people" in RFCs, propose adding those words it and point to the
> reference.
> Barbara
>
>
>
> --
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
h <http://cagnazzo.name>ttp://cagnazzo.me
=========================