Re: [Terminology] offensive terminology draft progressing on independent stream

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hat on as a member of the Independent Stream Editorial Board
(ISEB, https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/iseb/).

There is a review process for Independent Stream documents, and
there's no automatic right to publication. 

Regards
   Brian

On 27-Aug-21 15:57, [e-mail] wrote:
> The terminology workgroup chartering effort has been closed, leaving
> just this mailing list. RFC editing style guides have been updated
> in accordance with the NIST document, in line with consensus on
> this list.
> 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/06/
> 
> 
> However, this Knodel/ten Oever terminology draft is still pushing
> for (independent stream) publication. -06 of that has just come out.
> That finally excises the was-always-inappropriate standards-track language,
> but does say, among many other things that you can read for yourselves:
> 
> 
> "  There is harm in protracted discussion about the validity IETF
>    participants and their experiences with exclusionary terminology.
>    The racism in the community that has been surfaced as a result of
>    this larger debate among technologists pushed away participants and
>    observers [Conger].  This illustrates the need to, as Graves is cited
>    above as saying, continue to raise awareness within our community for
>    eventual, lasting change on the continued front of struggle against
>    the racists amongst us.  "
> 
> 
> Citing the New York Times article which describes the debate that
> this draft fuelled is something of an ouroboros. Graves and Graves said
> nothing about the IETF community. The grammar there seems quite
> tortuous, which may well reflect the clarity of underlying thought.
> There is harm in protracted discussion of exclusionary terminology --
> this, in a long document focused on discussing exclusionary terminology?
> And calling IETF participants racist is bound to go down well.
> 
> 
> There were many other alternate drafts proposed, some which were viewed
> far more favourably than this particular draft, not least because those
> weren't calling their readers racists. Work on those drafts was halted
> by their authors due to agreed consensus to follow the guidelines of the
> NIST document.
> 
> 
> This does look like an attempted end-run around previous consensus;
> don't get a workgroup to play thought police in, get published anyway.
> 
> 
> Why should this particular draft be published and endorsed to be viewed
> by the wider world (which doesn't understand independent stream nuances)
> as an official IETF position? It's simply not.
> 
> 
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> 
> [e-mail]
>