Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

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
>
> Specifically, for "master/slave" or "blacklist/whitelist", look at
> https://help.apple.com/applestyleguide/#/apsg72b28652 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
>
>
>
>
>