I agree with Alissa. Nothing good can come of this
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 04:37 IETF Sergeant at Arms <saa@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team
(described in more detail at [1]) has been in touch with Masataka Ohta
off-list concerning their recent message [2] to ietf@xxxxxxxx under a
new subject line but on the same topic against the direction from the
IETF Chair [3]. We encourage everyone to review the IETF discussion list
charter [4] and our SOP [5].
Thanks,
Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team
[1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jxwdePey2Q6R7XgBQef5QS5paVU/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t6AZcMH2S_YtldSNBlaNwPfO_P8/
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005
[5] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md
On 12/08/20 1:20 pm, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> IETF Chair wrote:
>
>> As stated on July 23, 2020, the IESG believes the use of oppressive
>> or exclusionary language is harmful. Such terminology is present in
>> some IETF documents, including standards-track RFCs, and has been for
>> many years.
>
> That IESG made such statement without IETF consensus is wrong
> and is the most efficient way to harm IETF.
>
> In the statement, IESG even stated:
>
> > The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are
> > not uniform.
>
> which means IESG is actively aware that there is no IETF consensus.
>
>> Since the publication of the July 23 IESG statement, there has been
>> significant discussion of this topic on ietf@xxxxxxxx as well as
>> discussion of a related Internet-draft,
>
> It is partly because, IESG stated in the statement that:
>
> > The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community,
>
> Now, how can you say you don't want to hear from the community?
>
> Because oppositions from the community is far more stronger
> than you expected? If so, it's time for IESG to admit its
> statement not based on IETF consensus is just wrong, which is
> the way to avoid further harming IETF.
>
>> One
>> suggestion made on ietf@xxxxxxxx [1] that received support from other
>> members of the community was to explore and reference how other
>> organizations and communities are approaching this issue.
>
> Why don't you quote the relevant part of [1]?
>
> In [1]. it is written that:
>
> : 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.
>
> and because many, including me, are against to have the list
> itself, we just said we are against to have the list itself
> without specifically arguing against detailed way to have
> the list.
>
> That "that received support from other members of the
> community" deforms the reality.
>
>> The continued ietf@xxxxxxxx email list discussion on this topic is
>> not benefitting anyone and is actively harmful in our collective
>> pursuit of an inclusive and respectful IETF.
>
> IETF was already badly harmed by IESG's statement actively
> ignoring IETF consensus.
>
> That we can confirm it through IETF mailing list discussion
> does not mean the discussion is harming IETF any worse.
>
> > By contrast, the brief
> > discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108
> > was cordial and constructive.
>
> "brief"? Then, there shouldn't have been any real discussion.
>
> > On August 7, I requested [2] that participants put aside their email
> > commentary in anticipation of a to-be-scheduled GENDISPATCH interim
> > meeting where this topic will next be discussed. That request was
> > ignored.
>
> Of course. Though you wrote something about your opinion on result
> of GENDISPATCH session, S Moonesamy wrote to you:
>
> : There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the mailing
> : list. I could not find any message pertaining to that in the relevant
> : mailing list archives. What are the actions items?
>
> You didn't give any answer, which is interpreted by anyone familiar
> with IETF process to mean that the result of the session is not
> yet formally obtained and your opinion on the yet-non-existent
> result should better be ignored.
>
> As such, your request on August 7 was not constructive one.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
