Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE 
involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF 
could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines 
of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some words.  Here are some other 
words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of 
them.)

Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that 
following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting 
bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will 
there be an RSE?".

Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep 
the question in mind.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/8/2020 10:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --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
>