On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 03:53:25PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 08:20:59PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know > > of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to > > take an approach that produces messages structured roughly [...] > > That works only when there's actually room for debate. Once the > disagreement is over matters of in-group orthodoxy, direct logical > argument ceases to be effective. This is critical. Last year we saw: - the SAA questionably sicc'ed on some participants - the IETF Chair post a vitriolic message in the name of the IETF Chair rather than her own name (the SAA did nothing about this) - an I-D author calling the community racist in an I-D revision (the SAA did nothing about this either) - constructive attempts to deal with terminology differently than what is clearly preferred by the IESG... ignored or shut down (e.g., Keith wrote an alternative proposal I-D, and I confess I've lost track of what came of it because I simply disengaged in the Fall) And this in a context where prominent participants have written some rather intimidating posts. One of them posted -admittedly on a non-IETF list that nonetheless has a lot of IETF participants on it- a link to a picture of people who disagreed with him (some of them prominent IETF participants) and clearly implied that they disagreed with him on account of their skin color (!), and he further implied that they should lose their jobs. In this day and age, a mob accusing one of racism often leads to one's name being pulled out of the Great Postmodern Ostrakon, thus even a hint of a threat of that can be quite intimidating, and everyone knows this, especially those that resort to such threats. Now, Ben complained that not providing the entire context in a lenghty satire is a lack of respect to readers. One might retort "so don't read it", or point out that clearly that satire hit a nerve, and that if its biggest problem was that its lack of context is a lack of respect for the reader, well, that's not exactly awful -- hardly a CoC violation, and certainly not worthy of the entire IESG calling it out as a group. (Though I have my doubts that Lars spoke for the entire IESG.) All of that said, some of the context that was missing from Lloyd's I-D is explained above. Yes, satire may be the last resort to get the message through that the heavy-handed use of authority has gotten out of control. It is not surprising that Lloyd thought we might be there. > [...] > > The present dogmas are for now somewhat more benign, we are expected to > believe that making a non-trivial subset of existing contributors rather > uncomfortable with the new normal, perhaps to the point of exclusion, is > warranted by the ideal of being more inclusive of some hypothetical set > of future contributors, who (rather questionably in the eyes of > sceptics) were somehow deterred not by the obvious barriers of > educational opportunities, employment opportunities, wealth, ... but > rather because of the IETF's technical jargon. I want to stress this point. It is necessary to push back against over-policing and abuse of authority early, for later is often too late. I don't even mind the terminology issue. I've repeatedly pointed out that I have used primary/replica for two decades now. Too, the desired effect of precluding the use of the specific potentially-offensive or potentially-exclusionary terms has already been had, thus the insistence that we publish a BCP on the matter must be about signaling our virtue (fine), but the insistence that we publish a particular I-D that generates dissent (in part because it calls the community racist) is suspect. What some of us mind most is the heavy-handed approach that the IETF leadership (the IESG and the IETF Chair) has taken. > [...] > > So yes, I do find the proposed language policing Orwellian, and satire > and ridicule more than deserved. I would support a dry BCP that says that authors SHOULD avoid terminology thought at the time of publication to be offensive. I am irrevocably opposed to publishing a BCP whose body (or some revision thereof) claims that the community is racist because it argued against it. > For the record, I have no prejudice against any groups of people who'd > like to participate in the IETF, and have no issue with an expectation > of professional discourse. Of course, and I very much believe you, as I have known you for a couple of decades now, but see the above comment about intimidation. You only even have to think about preemptively professing your lack of prejudice because you must fear that prejudice will be imputed on account of your opposition to the proposal. > I do take issue with the notion that entirely out of context we need to > expend precious IETF energy to seek out prejudice in technical jargon, > atone for our sins, and be hyper-vigilant in our commucation lest it > be possible for someone somewhere to read something other into them > than their well-established technical meanings. > > Yes language evolves, and is said in polite society now, is not the same > as it was decades or longer ago. This happens quite naturally, and > there is little need for a formal registry of taboos to demonstrate our > openness. If the text of an I-D is outside a WG's accepted lexicon, > corrections will be suggested during the process, and the language in > documents will naturally track language norms over time. +1 > What's objectionable is explicit policing of language by a select group > of experts who can tell us what to think and how to think it. > > The CoC is presumably clear that professional conduct is expected, and > harassment, bullying, ... are not tolerated, and all are welcome to > participate. That should be quite enough. Nowadays it seems that is apparently insufficient. Nico --
