IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sat, 25 July 2020 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 A043E3A1216 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 z7Zx3kG7OZuo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 08:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFC2B3A123F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 08:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-49-104-93.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.49.104.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 450A9540DE3; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 11:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <94729FE7-4820-4927-A4A8-AD004A8BB65B@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 11:43:11 -0400
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <91E8BB02-BF0A-4E20-AF55-406B09EEFE13@puck.nether.net>
References: <94729FE7-4820-4927-A4A8-AD004A8BB65B@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G68)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sLeNnAVLFet3Dog7sg6IYKYN3vk>
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: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 15:43:28 -0000

I think it's clear we can do better here. This doesn't mean we can resolve it all at once, but we can improve the quality of the products we produce. WG docs, WG last call and IETF last call provide many venues for us to audit our work and improve it. 

Let's focus on that, and as other said allow the IESG and RSE perform their roles to ensure the quality we aspire to. 

Sent from my iCar

> On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On 7/24/20, 8:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of Lars Eggert" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lars@eggert.org> wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
> 
>    I've been reading this thread, and don't understand how this IESG statement is controversial.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email