On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 06:22:32PM -0500, Mary B wrote: > You might also want to consider that it isn't just a US majority, it's a > white male US majority, which is also an issue IMHO. The same applies for > WG chairs etc. Indeed, I would posit that the lack of diversity when it > comes to gender is also a huge issue with the organization. Lets stay on topic (or open another thread): What specifically do you think we should do to have sufficient diversity for deciding on IETF document language evolution ? How much is this ok. to be a primarily USA lead initiative ? What does it say about the self proclaimed inclusiveness goal of the IETF if it does imvolve 70% or more USA centric contributors ? Same question to the others who +1 your post. Cheers Toerless > > Regards, > Mary. > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:57 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Joe, *: > > > > Here is how i think this whole effort is exclusionary: > > > > For the mayority of writers and even more so readers of IETF documents, > > english is not the first language. Even for any non-american native english > > speaker, i wonder how much they feel that there is a need to update the > > language > > used by the IETF for what arguably is primarily a US social problem: > > Dealing with > > a still seemingly not well enough handled history of afro-american racism > > and slavery. > > > > This effort of language change if it is then adopted officially in IETF or > > RFC > > editor will undoubtedly reconfirm the perception if not reality that the > > IETF > > is a strongly USA dominated institution: > > > > - IETF chair lives in USA works for USA company > > - 12 of 14 IESG members live in the USA and/or work for USA companies. > > - 10 out of 13 IAB members live in the USA and/or work for USA companies. > > - Anybody want to take a bet what percentage of WG chairs live in the > > USA and/or work for a USA company ? > > - Any of the other leadership roles ? > > > > While in the past USA leadership was seen as very positive, unfortunately > > this > > has changed around the world, and this effort has good chances to also be > > seen in that light: > > > > In this case, we have a situation where (if i analyze it correctly) not > > even > > the long-term IETF community, but one from outside the IETF brings this > > USA centric > > social issue into the IETF, and the USA centric active IETF community is > > directly > > jumping on this boat because they confuse whatever might be good for their > > countries community to be equally good for the supposedly much larger > > and supposedly much more diverse and inclusive global IETF community. To > > me, this > > is a sign of even stronger USA influence than anything technical we had so > > far. > > > > IMHO this is NOT going to be perceived well in the worldwide IETF > > community, > > instead, this will create more ridicule about bullish USA centric influence > > and control of the IETF. > > > > I for once learned a lot of network/software terminology from german > > language > > books using american terms. For all intent and purpose the mayority of the > > worldwide IETF community and even moree so the readers of IETF products > > (RFCs) > > uses english ONLY as a technical language in a similar fashion. Why would > > that community have to care about social issues in the USA in their > > technical language ? Change english originated technical terms in maybe > > a hundred foreign language books to match latest IETF documents ? > > Retrain students all over the world about technical networking terms > > and having to explain USA history in its wake ? And that going to play > > positive ?? > > > > How about we create an RFC-editor language advisory board: 10 people > > selected at random from the active community, at most 2 first-language > > english > > speakers, at most 2 first-language chinese speaker, at most one > > first-language > > speaker for any other language. That would be a good starting point > > to decide what does and what does not qualify as IETF community relevant > > RFC language problems. > > > > Otherwise, we could simply replace any english term we do not like as > > americans with a french term for use in the IETF. They have a long history > > of trying to keep their own language freee of english influence, and AFAIK > > they even have a government oversight board for such terminology, so i am > > sure they will have a technical terms for anything we need and those > > terms have been vetted professionally. Might even get lower hotel rates > > next time in Quebec if we do this ;-) > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:35:37PM -0700, Joseph Touch wrote: > > > On Jul 24, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > And you think this discussion isn???t exclusionary? > > > > > > > > O. > > > > > > Just as ???free speech??? cannot include ???speech??? that restricts the > > speech of others, avoiding exclusionary language cannot avoid excluding > > those who consider that language appropriate. > > > > > > If that???s what you mean. If not, it would be useful to explain. > > > > > > Joe > > > > -- > > --- > > tte@xxxxxxxxx > > > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
