Terminology discussion threads

[IETF Chair <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

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. It is at odds with our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in the IETF, and among readers of our documents.

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, draft-knodel-terminology, during the GENDISPATCH working group session at IETF 108. 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. Based on this suggestion, I will be working together with the authors of draft-knodel-terminology to create an online resource that lists references to other organizations’ and communities’ approaches. The resource will provide tips for document authors and reviewers to assist them in identifying instances where usage of metaphors can be made more clear and accurate and less exclusionary. This resource will not be in the form of an Internet-draft but rather will be a more easily updatable repository or wiki page.

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. By contrast, the brief discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108 was cordial and constructive. 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. 

After consultation with the sergeants-at-arms and the IESG, I have made the decision under RFC 3005 to block postings of further messages to [e-mail] in threads with the following subject lines:

IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Some more thoughts about language and what to do next

Per the sergeants-at-arms standard operating procedures [3], anyone who changes the subject line and posts a substantive message on this same topic to [e-mail] will receive a Level 1 response from the sergeants-at-arms. In the Level 1 response we will indicate that if the original poster sends another message on this topic to [e-mail], the poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of posting rights from [e-mail].

The community’s energy on this topic will be most productively spent by providing feedback during the GENDISPATCH interim about the resource mentioned above once it exists. The GENDISPATCH chairs will be working on scheduling the interim when they are both back from vacation. Once the GENDISPATCH interim takes place, the decision to restrict postings in the [e-mail] threads listed above will be revisited.

Regards,
Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NbPi05FzPbebNALxuvJskGyHbSM/ 
[3] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md