RE: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
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 C97113A0BC8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 iG98fBmFXYJJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 1C9E23A0B9D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06TFMFUj029548 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:46 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 32j0rb0awh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:46 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06TFXjLw030659 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:45 -0400
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06TFXgXg030586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:42 -0400
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id AED22400B57B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:33:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.109]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 99986400B578 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:33:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:41 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:33:41 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Thread-Topic: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Thread-Index: AQHWYQ92QkPuo+zmf0yn1kbamJZaxakWgT+AgAACbQCAAAvnAIAAIKOAgAAFl4CABtmoAIABFsKAgAAUdQCAAB+JAIAAEgMA///BwFA=
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:33:41 +0000
Message-ID: <eb0feb43f71d4a8b8f9f1e7eec264b17@att.com>
References: <933ce8b4-78a5-76bf-55c3-7c5694faffbb@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <267BCA35-3A3F-440B-9F5F-2C818D5AE71A@icloud.com> <e7956fd8-2639-3df6-9539-0dd483cafa25@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <34CF64D6-10F3-4F45-B592-FA14C911DB0B@chopps.org> <c18fc227-7da0-1487-a2ae-74de1ac73759@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CALaySJ+UbSP5nJungBae053q7W_VQ-8yx2pr+KP6S+G81_1_VA@mail.gmail.com> <29896C76-F631-4E5A-9F42-CB9CEA08ABF8@gmail.com> <0A4009EF-5FF7-4BDD-9D45-33DEBC140CFD@akamai.com> <f60386ad-2dbe-4364-aa14-c8b8ceac46b3@www.fastmail.com> <d6ded405-d91a-5235-3f8d-5afacb490a11@mnt.se>
In-Reply-To: <d6ded405-d91a-5235-3f8d-5afacb490a11@mnt.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.90.7]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 6651073281F26D1FECDE58BEBD2A3916CB0C21AF5B6E3CA91EED6FE55D14A62A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-29_10:2020-07-29, 2020-07-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007290104
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q>
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, 29 Jul 2020 15:33:50 -0000

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

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