RFC 3005 mentions that the following topics determine what constitute inappropriate postings to the mailing list:
- Unsolicited bulk e-mail
- Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
activities, or technical concerns
- Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
- Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
The discussion on terminology falls into none of the above categories. In contrast, the following is listed clearly as an appropriate topic of discussion:
- Discussion of IETF administrative policies
The discussion of a proposal to revise the fundamental language, even into the past, used by the IETF due to political and ideological reasons espoused by some IETF members in the United States seems like a pretty important IETF administrative policy issue.
Furthermore, there appears to be an exceptional lack of consensus on this issue. Despite the IESG’s insistence that
> …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.
, we appear to be far from such consensus. And despite the IESG asserting that
> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community,
, the discussion is explicitly banned by the IESG when it appeared that the broader IETF did not at all appreciate or agree with fundamental notions of language attributed to the IETF by the IESG based on what appears to be a complete detachment from reality.
As an Arab immigrant I have never seen any of my peers even consider harm from words such as “master” or “blacklist”.
And yet, I can assure you that we have a deeply-etched understanding of the signs of cultural totalitarianism, otherization, demonization and the breakdown of institutions and discourse in favor of political fanaticism.
I have been working on protocols for many years and I do not exaggerate when I say that I am existentially frightened by what I am seeing happen in technological institutions and working groups.
I deeply oppose the IESG’s conduct regarding this matter and express worry for what is to come for the open, free and *truly* inclusive nature of our communities.
Finally, I feel great remorse at seeing bad faith automatically attributed to anyone who questions the long-term implications of these views being declared uniformly as “true” of the IETF by the IESG, and I regret to see the discussion shuttered like this.
Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
> On 11 Aug 2020, at 8:02 PM, IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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. It is at odds with our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in the IETF, and among readers of our documents.
>
> 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, draft-knodel-terminology, during the GENDISPATCH working group session at IETF 108. 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. Based on this suggestion, I will be working together with the authors of draft-knodel-terminology to create an online resource that lists references to other organizations’ and communities’ approaches. The resource will provide tips for document authors and reviewers to assist them in identifying instances where usage of metaphors can be made more clear and accurate and less exclusionary. This resource will not be in the form of an Internet-draft but rather will be a more easily updatable repository or wiki page.
>
> 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. By contrast, the brief discussion that occurred during the GENDISPATCH session at IETF 108 was cordial and constructive. 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.
>
> After consultation with the sergeants-at-arms and the IESG, I have made the decision under RFC 3005 to block postings of further messages to ietf@xxxxxxxx in threads with the following subject lines:
>
> IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
> USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
> Some more thoughts about language and what to do next
>
> Per the sergeants-at-arms standard operating procedures [3], anyone who changes the subject line and posts a substantive message on this same topic to ietf@xxxxxxxx will receive a Level 1 response from the sergeants-at-arms. In the Level 1 response we will indicate that if the original poster sends another message on this topic to ietf@xxxxxxxx, the poster will receive a Level 2 response, including a 14-day suspension of posting rights from ietf@xxxxxxxx.
>
> The community’s energy on this topic will be most productively spent by providing feedback during the GENDISPATCH interim about the resource mentioned above once it exists. The GENDISPATCH chairs will be working on scheduling the interim when they are both back from vacation. Once the GENDISPATCH interim takes place, the decision to restrict postings in the ietf@xxxxxxxx threads listed above will be revisited.
>
> Regards,
> Alissa Cooper
> IETF Chair
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rWblxY7uzMkZtFriVGaIxB0Jy_Q/
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NbPi05FzPbebNALxuvJskGyHbSM/
> [3] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/sop.md
>
>
