Subject: [Gendispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:15:30 +0200

Dear all,

Here is a new version of draft-knodel-terminology for discussion during the interim. I hope we'll have some time to present. This time the document will be presented by Mallory.

Best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:00:12 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Niels ten Oever and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-knodel-terminology
Revision:	04
Title:		Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs
Document date:	2020-08-24
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		12
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-knodel-terminology-04
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-knodel-terminology
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-knodel-terminology-04

Abstract:
   This document argues for more inclusive language conventions
   sometimes used by RFC authors and the RFC Production Centre in
   Internet-Drafts that are work in progress, and in new RFCs that may
   be published in any of the RFC series, in order to foster greater
   knowledge transfer and improve diversity of participation in the
   IETF.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:18:18 -0700

> Here is a new version of draft-knodel-terminology for discussion during the interim. I hope we'll have some time to present. This time the document will be presented by Mallory.

   I see you've removed the unprofessional text that called someone out
by name as "an indicator of actual racism." That's good. You might also
want to remove the reference in 8.4. But you replaced it with a vague
accusation of racism on the part of critics of your draft:

"There is harm in protracted discussion about the validity IETF [sic]
    participants and their experiences with exclusionary terminology.
    The racism in the community that has been surfaced [sic] as a result
    of this larger debate among technologists pushed away participants
    and observers."

That's very offensive. You're attempting to silence critics and avoid
having to make your case by smearing people who ask you legitimate
questions as racists.

   This version might actually be worse than the previous one.

   Dan.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:23:08 -0400

>    of this larger debate among technologists pushed away participants

I wonder if such an accusation is permissible under RFC 7154.

Keith

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:03:28 -0500

I want to start out by saying that the details of this draft are not 
terribly relevant to the main dispatch question we're meant to be 
answering: How should this topic be dispatched? As has been said before, 
while we need to look at some of the contents to decide if the document 
is a good starting point for work, we might end up suggesting not to use 
this document. Bron has proposed a different approach to the same topic 
area, and Keith has suggested he might do the same. Our primary focus 
should be on whether the topic area is one that the IETF should be 
working on, and if so in what form. Going after a specific paragraph in 
a specific document is not helpful in answering those questions.

On the items you've called out, concerns that a document author (or any 
participant, really) is saying things that are "unprofessional", or 
"offensive", or "attempting to silence critics", or "smearing people", 
should really be brought to the chairs of the WG (or, depending on the 
nature of the comment, bringing it to the Ombudsteam) and not argued on 
the list. The chairs can then take appropriate action including 
discussions with the person off-list, a public admonishment, or bringing 
things to the AD or IESG as appropriate. In particular, having another 
participant on the list escalate things by publicly accusing the author 
of saying something "unprofessional", or of making an "accusation of 
racism on the part of critics", or of "smearing people ... as racists" 
is not a useful path to solve the problem.

Finally:

> I wonder if such an accusation is permissible under RFC 7154.

The reference to "racism in the community" I took as a reference to 
institutional racism, not an accusation of individual bigots in the 
community. I do not think it is a personal attack.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best