Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

Maybe we want to run some kind of threat modeling before we put in place
a tool like that. I am concerned that "the road to hell is paved with
good intentions." For example, if there is a process like that, what is
the guarantee that some dictatorial regimes do not use it to enforce
party-line recommendations? And of course, no dictatorial regime will
ever admit that they are a dictature...

-- Christian Huitema

On 7/29/2020 12:35 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>
> Hi Victor,
>
> I think I may not have described what I was suggesting clearly enough.
> I wasn’t proposing any fixed (i.e., MANDATORY or MUST) rules. I was
> trying to avoid problems caused by the perception that people inside
> IETF would be identifying what words were problematic (using their own
> subjective criteria, and where the decision makers are not members of
> the demographics perceived to be slighted by the words), and that use
> of these words would be strictly prohibited.
>
>  
>
> Let me make my suggestion more concretely:
>
>  
>
> There exists a list (not an IANA list, but maybe on tools or datatracker).
>
> This list has 2 columns:
>
> Word or Phrase  |  Reference(s)
>
>  
>
> The Reference(s) column has references to websites where entities IETF
> considers important are asking for the word or phrase not to be used
> in documentation or publications that they have some element of
> control over. It can be delimited (comma or semi-colon) so a word that
> is referenced by multiple entities can have multiple references.
>
>  
>
> The Word column could have a tool (like idnits) developed against it
> such that authors, shepherds, or anyone else can directly run the
> check and there is no need for WG chairs or GenArt reviewers to be
> held responsible for knowing all the words on the list or running the
> tool.
>
>  
>
> It is only RECOMMENDED that these words not be used. The authors are
> being asked to make a **conscious** decision to use the words, knowing
> some people somewhere may have issues in certain contexts. The authors
> are also provided references so they can know who it is who has issues
> and in what context. But it can also happen that a reviewer or RFC
> editor decides to run the check and asks the authors if use of the
> words was intentional. The authors can say “Yes”, and that’s the end
> of it (until the next person asks and they say “Yes” again). “Yes, use
> of these words is intentional” is valid; which means publication of a
> RFC isn’t denied just because it contains those words.
>
>  
>
> But lists like this don’t just magically spawn. There needs to be a
> process for creating/updating the list. I think anyone should be able
> to suggest adding a word or phrase. But they have to provide a
> reference where an entity describes how that entity deals with
> occurrences of that word or phrase. The suggester can also provide
> additional references for existing entries. Some people do need to
> look at the suggestion and make a decision as to whether the
> referenced website is sufficiently relevant to IETF and belongs on the
> list.
>
>  
>
> I think this is manageable with relatively low overhead, and it
> doesn’t censor use of the words. It merely asks people to make an
> informed and conscious decision to use the words. And the list of
> words to be careful about is explicit and known.
>
> Barbara
>
>  
>
> *From:*Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:11 AM
> *To:* STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
>
>  
>
> Barbara,
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developer.apple.com_news_-3Fid-3D1o9zxsxl&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=KGQ1RQlq8czTXz492w-8fak_ka8kxLlHRSTeBzQXbLU&s=Eh4QhnAGng9GaqjLRoNUv_dscuCVaUSBQ2PvbDw3akM&e=>
>
>     Specifically, for "master/slave" or "blacklist/whitelist", look at
>     https://help.apple.com/applestyleguide/#/apsg72b28652
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__help.apple.com_applestyleguide_-23_apsg72b28652&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=KGQ1RQlq8czTXz492w-8fak_ka8kxLlHRSTeBzQXbLU&s=N3_-r7Tw9dSLr5jiyEQXbLKL8arC4XWS7EMeGEiKNQM&e=>
>     and go to master/slave or blacklist/whitelist in the alphabetical list
>
>  
>
> Since this is such a problematic topic, I was wondering if there is a
> more subtle way to slowly address this with as little pain as
> possible.  People may get upset that I am making this suggestion,
> however here it is.
>
>  
>
> 1. WG Chairs (since we read the docs anyway), flag a doc for GenART
> review if words are in it that may need to be scrutinized  (AD can
> also ask for that review)
>
> 2. As part of that directorate  review (or we create a new directorate
> for this? ) we flag / make recommendations on
> alterative words/phrases if needed
>
>  
>
> Seems like this would work without the need to pre-agree.  That team
> can then look to key external references as input.  Over time, with
> some experience behind us (from actual reviews and updates), we can
> then apply our knowledge and experience to the problem to see if it
> makes sense to create more fixed rules on this.  Perhaps this is too
> late in the process to do such changes.  it would also incentive
> authors and WG chairs to pre-vet for this in as part of normal
> document creation.  We have lots of time to make this part of normal
> WG review anyway.
>
>  
>
> regards,
>
>  
>
> Victor K
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>     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
>
>
>