Re: Terminology discussion threads

[IETF Sergeant at Arms <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team 
(described in more detail at [1]) has been in touch with Masataka Ohta 
off-list concerning their recent message [2] to [e-mail] under a 
new subject line but on the same topic against the direction from the 
IETF Chair [3]. We encourage everyone to review the IETF discussion list 
charter [4] and our SOP [5].

Thanks,
Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team

[1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jxwdePey2Q6R7XgBQef5QS5paVU/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t6AZcMH2S_YtldSNBlaNwPfO_P8/
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005
[5] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md


On 12/08/20 1:20 pm, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail] [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 [e-mail] 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
>