Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 21 September 2018 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 2444A130EBD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 HHVzfmRJEI80 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47E3D130EB4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42Gvlh2DG6zF5D; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:37:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1537537024; bh=X9k29T2RMAqZ1+nIGHWAvL+jm9FxDTyqn/ZnvzzIls4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=CiSjPr0V6ZCrlaBSyB78rpL/dkgBLFVWkhTFkjblAKrv5zY8DchiqbX+YeMZwsmmR Cr2DbdMHnW1HG2MYNTy04Z2RB6A2ipf/WKfr7SH5CqqdeMqzP45tEoGgCcR5mzEHZv BYnbxgfbEaPXaBUiekLhxfIrcKIaFznGZ6SnqyZc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuMqUy4qUUxH; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:37:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:37:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.111.228.72] (unknown [193.111.228.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D92F02EEDB3; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca D92F02EEDB3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A366)
In-Reply-To: <325538173.14441870.1537527705103@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:36:32 -0400
Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6EC8B12E-0908-4AED-B2E4-6ADA37BF01DB@nohats.ca>
References: <20180920233440.238CA20051DDE5@ary.qy> <5d3da769-5243-f6ee-35b2-d63f9e43b33a@cisco.com> <4c8aa4ce-b491-b816-9967-e723b8b3be03@digitaldissidents.org> <325538173.14441870.1537527705103@mail.yahoo.com>
To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oDeZeIuOGq5DQOqI7zV4cnyTjcs>
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: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:37:17 -0000


> On Sep 21, 2018, at 07:01, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Niels,
> 
> you are surprised about this conversation here and now on HPRC,
> despite you being the very person who initiated this conversation
> introducing the topic of HPRC to the main list?

Niels introduced a topic from HPRC that he thought warranted discussion outside of HPRC. Since HPRC per definition is about ALL of IETF considering the impact of IETF protocols on human rights, that is appropriate and expected output of the group.

What Niels was surprised about was some people’s reaction to close down HPRC, and I concur with Niels’ surprise. The arguments so far (from you and John Levine) have been that since HRPC didn’t attain world peace and universal human rights, it should be closed down. It fails to understand the groups goal. If that kind of measuring is used, the Security Area and IPv6 groups should have been closed down years ago.

> And you complain
> about someone expressing a contrary and dissenting position while
> emailing from **digitaldissidents**.org? Irony much?

Niels is not complaining, you are. And this attack doesn’t belong on this list.

> (I'd also like to know why my replies to you aren't cc'ing the
> list by default; that does look like an attempt to stifle debate,
> but I don't see the expected Reply-To: in headers.)

And now you seem to imply the ietf@ietf.org list settings are somehow Niels’ fault. If you want to complain about these, a new thread devoid of HRPC discussion, just discussions this particular’s list settings would be the appropriate way to raise this as an issue to discuss.

> remember: social justice warriors have never been to war.

You are trying to prove that you “mastered”  flame baiting?

I guess if anything, you showed that IETF has a lot of work to do to become more inclusive and considerate, and if we really need to discuss whether HRPC should be closed down or not (I don’t think we do) than your behavior shows the need to keep it open.

Paul