Re: Terminology discussion threads
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 12 August 2020 07:50 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 B09AF3A1113 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=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 Ke-8WdXFlm-z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB9143A1111 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28618 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2020 07:32:32 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 12 Aug 2020 07:32:32 -0000
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <43d648d2-cd9c-ec67-a60c-8d4be2c1836b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:50:37 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jxwdePey2Q6R7XgBQef5QS5paVU>
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:50:43 -0000
IETF Chair wrote: > 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. That IESG made such statement without IETF consensus is wrong and is the most efficient way to harm IETF. In the statement, IESG even stated: > The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are > not uniform. which means IESG is actively aware that there is no IETF consensus. > 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, It is partly because, IESG stated in the statement that: > The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, Now, how can you say you don't want to hear from the community? Because oppositions from the community is far more stronger than you expected? If so, it's time for IESG to admit its statement not based on IETF consensus is just wrong, which is the way to avoid further harming IETF. > 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. Why don't you quote the relevant part of [1]? In [1]. it is written that: : 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. and because many, including me, are against to have the list itself, we just said we are against to have the list itself without specifically arguing against detailed way to have the list. That "that received support from other members of the community" deforms the reality. > 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. IETF was already badly harmed by IESG's statement actively ignoring IETF consensus. That we can confirm it through IETF mailing list discussion does not mean the discussion is harming IETF any worse. > By contrast, the brief > discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108 > was cordial and constructive. "brief"? Then, there shouldn't have been any real discussion. > 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. Of course. Though you wrote something about your opinion on result of GENDISPATCH session, S Moonesamy wrote to you: : There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the mailing : list. I could not find any message pertaining to that in the relevant : mailing list archives. What are the actions items? You didn't give any answer, which is interpreted by anyone familiar with IETF process to mean that the result of the session is not yet formally obtained and your opinion on the yet-non-existent result should better be ignored. As such, your request on August 7 was not constructive one. Masataka Ohta
- 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