+1
On 8/12/20 12:50 AM, 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
