Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 13:52 -0400 Michael StJohns
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any
> result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than
> just the IETF.  (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).
> 
> On 8/8/2020 5:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> I disagree with this approach.
>> 
>> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international
>> experts on technical language and the editors of other major
>> standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us
>> with a recommendation.

Agreed, but with two suggestions/provisos (both derived from
comments made by others):

(1) Unless we want to push the IETF toward a relapse in which we
are a US-based body with some "foreigners" allowed to
participate, whatever mechanisms are developed need to be
sensitive to inappropriate terminology in other languages,
whether natively there, plausible translations, or
transliterations.  We don't need to boil all oceans all at once,
but we have to start with the understanding that US English is
not the only language or culture when inappropriate language
occurs.

(2) While I agree that this should be an RSE task, I think we
need to remember that we don't have an RSE.  While it might be
possible to ask John to start the research project (although
that is pushing the boundaries of what he signed up for) he
doesn't have, and it might be problematic to give him, the
authority to start making decisions in this space.  We should
also note that one reading of the trends in the RFC Futures
discussion (not, obviously, the only reading) is that we don't
really need an RSE, especially an RSE with any authority.  If
that was actually the trend in that area, then assigning this
type of responsibility to the RSE might be something of a
contradiction.

    john