Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02

From: Nick Doty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:49:51 -0400

On Jul 23, 2020, at 3:00 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:19 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 22 Jul 2020, at 16:31, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> 
>>> To Pete’s email, where should this work take place?
>> 
>> See my other response, but this is part of the question the WG is meant to answer. Do we think we need a WG or BOF to work on this? Then we're probably going to suggest discussing on a new mailing list. If we think this belongs somewhere else, e.g., I could imagine that we decide that it should be part of the RFC Editor's responsibility, then we could ask the IETF Chair or LLC to take up the work. But we've got a whole menu of options.
> 
> In addition to the ideas I’ve seen discussed on the list thus far (in the draft, updates to the RFC Style Guide, changes to the idnits tool), I’ve been wondering whether writing up some guidance for Gen-ART reviewers could also be part of the mix here. This could have a simple focus on checking for clear, descriptive metaphors, or it could be more detailed. In any event since the directorate reviews every document before publication that might be an additional tool to consider.
> 
> I would also note that since our collective understanding of the impact of language evolves over time, it might be useful to think about the line between what might get memorialized in an RFC (say, a broader statement of policy or principle that doesn’t change often) versus what might get documented in a form that could be more detailed and easier to update like the I-D checklist [1] (which is fairly out of date but technically easier to update than an RFC) or an IESG statement.

+1 to the use of tools including the Style Guide, but also to documentation for reviewers.

To give an example from another standard-setting organization, W3C has recently updated their Manual of Style with a brief section on inclusive terminology:
https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/#inclusive

That is informal guidance (and can be updated frequently), with a citation to the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which can speak more directly to the reasoning for inclusion and professionalism in the standard-setting process.

I’m grateful to the IESG for their statement noting the harm of exclusionary language, which is important to hear from community leaders. Most of the work of language changes will be made by individuals in smaller ways. Earlier this year, a quick review from a collaborator found usage of “whitelist”/“blacklist” in one of my older drafts, and a PR made it easy to correct the document, which also improved the precision of the metaphor in use. I think most authors will be similarly grateful for the feedback and that getting those comments in reviews done earlier in the process will make it easier for authors and readers.

Thanks,
Nick

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:19:45 +1200

On 10-Aug-20 05:49, Nick Doty wrote:
...> +1 to the use of tools including the Style Guide, 

The RFC Editor style guide is not the IETF's to change. Unless
we use some pretty advanced AI, I don't think tools that flag
bad words are going to be welcomed.

> but also to documentation for reviewers.

If the documentation is "watch out for inappropriate language", I think
that is what reviewers have been doing for many years. Setting aside
well-entrenched terms of art, I have very rarely seen inappropriate 
language in documents that came my way as a GenART reviewer. From a
quick scan of the reviews I've written since 2007, I haven't in fact
found *any* objectionable language at the IETF Last Call stage.

> https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/#inclusive

Rather than go into details, let me just assert that there is no
consensus in the IETF on the W3C's specific list of terms to avoid.
(Also, their table would make "to they" and "theirs ability"
valid constructs; it wouldn't get past GenART review on my watch.)

> I’m grateful to the IESG for their statement noting the harm of exclusionary language, which is important to hear from community leaders. Most of the work of language changes will be made by indivi…

Yes, but a blocklist/allowlist like the W3C's will not get very far in
the IETF's world of rough consensus. I think we have to be more subtle.
For example, words like "oppressive" and "inclusive" or "exclusionary"
are themselves value judgments and carry a certain amount of bias
with them. You can clearly see that in the endless loop of discussion
on the IETF main lits. I'd much rather we say "inappropriate" or
"unprofessional" when defining our topic.

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:28:02 -0300

On 9/8/20 20:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
> "unprofessional" when defining our topic.

Even more... they result in value-judgement discussions that somehow 
ironically seem to mostly exclude what would be the most 
affected/oppressed/excluded parties (so to speak).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:57:44 -0700

On 8/9/20 10:49 AM, Nick Doty wrote:
> I’m grateful to the IESG for their statement noting the harm of exclusionary language, which is important to hear from community leaders.

   I certainly am not!

   The IESG statement is merely an assertion. It does not say how
language excludes or who is excluded by language. And it does this
intentionally because the reasoning is likely fallacious or faulty
and exposes the person making the assertion to uncomfortable
further questions.

   draft-knodel-terminology says the quiet parts out loud though,
something the IESG statement avoided. And while the draft tries
to be cute by saying those quiet parts out loud in a rhetorical
question, it's still a rhetorical question and the answer is implied.
Those quiet parts said out loud are that the exclusionary language
is "master" and "slave" and those excluded are black people. We are
asked to consider, "what impact [reading this word] might have on
black students who are debating whether or not to enter science and
technology careers at all?" The question is answered since the
draft goes on to recommend action to get rid of these words.

   The etymology of "slave" is "Slav" [1] and the Slavs are white
people from Easter Europe who were subjected to slavery from the 9th
century until the early 20th when the last of Europe's slave markets
closed. So if historical experience with slavery is enough to cause
someone to question whether to enter a STEM field after seeing the
word "master" or "slave" it should be white people, specifically
Slavs.

   But it's absurd to suggest white people do not enter STEM degrees
because of this word. So why would black people whose experience with
slavery is almost entirely in North America and whose experience is
dwarfed by that of the Slavs? And this is where the IESG statement
and draft-knodel-terminology fail.

   What they're saying is white people would never react that way but
black people would. It's fundamentally a racist statement.It's the
racism of diminished expectations of an "other" group. Take a look
at the make-up of the authors of draft-knodel-terminology and the
IESG: white, western-educated, affluent, the opposite of this "other"
group they're white-knighting for.

   draft-knodel-terminology is racist and unless the IESG can explain
themselves, the implication is that they are also making a racist
assertion.

   This has no place in the IETF. This draft should be dispatched to
the nearest round file and the IESG should retract their statement
and apologize for it.

   regards,

   Dan.

[1] https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=slave

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:25:02 -0500

All,

We are not going to have a discussion of the merits of the IESG 
statement on this list. Nick's statement of gratitude on the list last 
week was not on topic, but was appropriately not taken up as a point of 
discussion. Dan's taking it up is not on topic either, and let's please 
drop that discussion now.

As to draft-knodel-terminology: The initial discussion (which I ask you 
to please hold until the interim, which Francesca and I will schedule 
ASAP) is about how to dispatch the document. That will involve to some 
degree talking about the whether it's worth pursuing the overall 
endeavor, independent of the document itself, but please let's focus the 
discussion toward the dispatch question primarily.

Also, describing documents as "tr[ying] to be cute" or talking about its 
"rhetorical" aims is commenting about tone and style, not the central 
points of the document. Not only is that irrelevant to the dispatch 
discussion, it's inappropriate.

Finally, please take discussions of what is or is not "racist" or 
"racism" off of this list. There is lots of good literature out there to 
educate yourself on how those words are used (I can dig up some 
references if you need them), but we are not going to have a productive 
discussion if we spend our time wielding those words without a common 
definition.

So, again, let's leave this topic alone until the interim.

Thanks,

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

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:11:23 -0700

Hi Pete,

On 8/12/20 12:25 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> "racism" off of this list. There is lots of good literature out there 
> to educate yourself on how those words are used (I can dig up some 
> references if you need them), but we are not going to have a 
> productive discussion if we spend our time wielding those words 
> without a common definition.
>

   The thing is, draft-knodel-terminology broached this subject
originally.

   It describes master-slave as "a more egregious example of racism."
The term. They're calling a technical term racism. Of course it's not
the worst though as there's another example it gives that "is more
pervasive and therefore more insidious." The draft warns of egregious
and insidious racism in documents! And I am assured it is not satire.

   draft-knodel-terminology goes further, though, to actually name and
shame an individual for a statement (from 2008!!!) that it describes as
"an indicator of actual racism in the community." Actual racism! This
is highly unprofessional and has no place in the IETF community.

   I'm educated enough about racism, thank you very much for your
offer but I'm good, that's why I feel qualified to call the draft out
for it. But I think it's kind of unfair for you to discourage use of
a word that is used quite a bit in the draft we are talking about
dispatching.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:06:13 -0700

> affected/oppressed/excluded parties (so to speak).

I think that Brian is pointing in the right direction. Words like
"master-slave" or "black list" have been used in the past without intent
to exclude people and without engaging in racial categorizations.
Assigning motives a posteriori just alienates people. It is also clear
that language is evolving. Continued use of these terms would become a
cultural marker, making a statement that the IETF as a whole does not
want to make. We are thus much more likely to gather consensus by
stating that we want our communications to be professional and avoid
inappropriate metaphors.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:25:13 +1200

> So, again, let's leave this topic alone until the interim.

I thought that this was an IETF WG and WG decisions are taken
on the mailing list, not in meetings. Depending on time zones,
some of us will not be at the meeting.

I do agree that most of the discussion so far has not been helpful.
In terms of dispatching the draft (which I agree is *this* WG's main
job) I would like to suggest that there is quite a variety of partially
overlapping options:

1. Recommend that it be dropped from IETF consideration...
1.1. ...and referred to the Independent stream
1.2. ...and referred to the RFC Editor
1.3. ...and forgotten
2. Recommend that a WG on this topic be formed...
2.1. ...and asked to use the draft as a starting point
2.1. ...and asked to start a completely new draft
3. Recommend that a sponsoring AD be found...
3.1. ...and that the draft be used as a starting point
3.2. ...and that the AD solicits a completely new draft
4. Recommend that the issue be handled solely by the IESG
5. Recommend that the issue be handled solely by the RFC Editor

I expect there are other options that I haven't thought of.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:25:57 -0500

On 12 Aug 2020, at 18:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> on the mailing list, not in meetings.

They are. However, it is perfectly acceptable to delay some discussions 
until face-to-face or interim meetings and bring the results of such 
meetings back to the list for review and further discussion.

> Depending on time zones,

I was considering holding more than one to address this concern. As soon 
as Francesca is back from holiday, I'll discuss with her and we'll send 
out a Doodle poll.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:32:43 -0400

On 8/13/20 11:25 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> They are. However, it is perfectly acceptable to delay some 
> discussions until face-to-face or interim meetings and bring the 
> results of such meetings back to the list for review and further 
> discussion.

I emphatically disagree, for multiple reasons.  Deferring discussion to 
an interim meeting is just a way of sweeping the discussion under a rug, 
and making it more difficult for people to participate.

And considering that we're witnessing repeated abusive behavior by the 
IETF leadership,  this is not a topic that should be deferred.

Keith

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:41:23 -0700

Dear General Area Dispatch Chairs,
>So, again, let's leave this topic alone until the interim.

Does the above refers to the draft mentioned in the subject line?

Was a decision taken at the last meeting of the working Group?  If 
that is the case, who took the decision?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:27:56 -0500

> Does the above refers to the draft mentioned in the subject line?

Yes, and the general subject of that draft: Since some of the possible 
outcomes we can suggest to dispatch the document include chartering a 
new WG or proposing a BOF, the draft itself may not survive the 
dispatch.

> Was a decision taken at the last meeting of the working Group?

As per the meeting minutes:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/minutes/minutes-108-gendispatch-01

there was no final decision as to the desired dispatch, and a request 
was made for discussion to continue on the mailing list. Some of that 
discussion did take place, but after the blowup on the IETF mailing 
list, it seemed likely that the discussion on the list was likely to 
quickly turn unproductive until we had some time to sort things 
(virtually) face-to-face and bring some more substance back to the list. 
That's why I asked for a pause in the discussion here until we had a 
chance to schedule the interim(s).

pr

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:41:38 -0500

On 13 Aug 2020, at 13:32, Keith Moore wrote:

> Deferring discussion to an interim meeting is just a way of sweeping 
> the discussion under a rug, and making it more difficult for people to 
> participate.

I will certainly not let discussion of this document/topic be swept 
under the rug. My intention is to have some discussion at the interim(s) 
that will produce some clear guidance to discussion on the list. I will 
try to work with Francesca to see if it's logistically possible to have 
more than one interim so that it is a bit easier for people to 
participate. Once we've complete the interim(s), I hope that the 
guidance we come up with can make the list discussion much more focused 
than it otherwise would have been, and we can finally come to a dispatch 
decision. So unless Francesca and I do our jobs poorly, I believe that 
the discussion will neither be swept under the rug or more difficult to 
participate in.

> IETF leadership,  this is not a topic that should be deferred.

Abusive behavior by IETF leadership is *definitely* not a topic for this 
list.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:58:57 -0400

On 8/14/20 12:41 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

>> the discussion under a rug, and making it more difficult for people 
>> to participate.
>
> under the rug. My intention is to have some discussion at the 
> interim(s) that will produce some clear guidance to discussion on the 
> list. I will try to work with Francesca to see if it's logistically 
> possible to have more than one interim so that it is a bit easier for 
> people to participate. Once we've complete the interim(s), I hope that 
> the guidance we come up with can make the list discussion much more 
> focused than it otherwise would have been, and we can finally come to 
> a dispatch decision. So unless Francesca and I do our jobs poorly, I 
> believe that the discussion will neither be swept under the rug or 
> more difficult to participate in. 

Having thought about this a bit more, I realize that I'm concerned about 
several things:

1. Meetings raise the bar for participation, relative to email 
discussion, even if there are multiple meetings.   Multiple meetings 
might even raise the bar in some sense if some participants felt it 
necessary to attend more than one of them in order to not be left out of 
the loop.    (After all one of the features of usual meetings is that 
everyone is in the same room and everything can be put on the table; 
multiple meetings might actually defeat this.)   Meetings may also 
conflict with other things in one's life so it's not always possible to 
participate. Either way, practically speaking, when the _only_ way to 
participate is via a meeting, this has the likely effect of excluding 
people and reducing participation.

2. Meetings are necessarily short in duration.   While they do provide 
the opportunity for more rapid interaction, they also restrict people's 
ability to speak even when they are present.

3. Email list discussion, messy and uncomfortable though it can be, 
provides an opportunity for participants to refine their positions based 
on feedback from others, which is valuable.

I understand that perhaps the gendispatch list is not the place for this 
discussion - it is a dispatch group after all - but perhaps a separate 
list should be created for this.   Deferring discussion to an interim 
meeting seems likely to have a chilling effect, and to further 
exacerbate the tensions that already exist.

Keith

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:14:44 -0500

Answering the last bit first:

On 13 Aug 2020, at 23:58, Keith Moore wrote:

> I understand that perhaps the gendispatch list is not the place for 
> this discussion - it is a dispatch group after all - but perhaps a 
> separate list should be created for this.

This seems to me a chicken and egg problem: The purpose of a dispatch 
group is to recommend a place for further work to take place on a 
subject. Suggesting that we set up a separate list is certainly among 
our choices. But in order to come to that (or another) conclusion, we 
will have to have some discussion that I believe will become too 
contentious to have on this list.

> Deferring discussion to an interim meeting seems likely to have a 
> chilling
> effect, and to further exacerbate the tensions that already exist.

I'm hoping that a 2-week-plus-a-few-days deferral will not exacerbate 
tensions. In fact, I suspect it will calm things a bit.

> Having thought about this a bit more, I realize that I'm concerned 
> about several things:
>
> discussion, even if there are multiple meetings.

I certainly agree with that, along with your stated reasons, and it will 
definitely be the chairs' responsibility to make sure that the 
discussion on the list after the meeting(s) is full and inclusive. 
However:

> Either way, practically speaking, when the _only_ way to participate 
> is via a meeting, this has the likely effect of excluding people and 
> reducing participation.

My point is (and was in my previous message) that the meeting(s) will 
definitely *not* be the only way to participate. The meeting(s) will 
provide input to the list discussion, not replace it. I know sometimes 
in the IETF we forget that. I'm committing that the chairs will not.

> 2. Meetings are necessarily short in duration.   While they do 
> provide the opportunity for more rapid interaction, they also restrict 
> people's ability to speak even when they are present.

If we are unable to have a reasonably non-restrictive conversation on a 
single topic in a 1-2 hour meeting (hopefully twice), then your chairs 
are not doing a good job.

> provides an opportunity for participants to refine their positions 
> based on feedback from others, which is valuable.

Agreed, and if we were going to eliminate email discussion completely, 
this would be a problem. But again, that is not the plan.

What is being requested is a short delay (a bit more than a couple of 
weeks), some meeting time to sort some of the issues, and then a focused 
list discussion to do the dispatching.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:20:18 -0400

On 8/14/20 1:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> I certainly agree with that, along with your stated reasons, and it 
> will definitely be the chairs' responsibility to make sure that the 

Well, that's not the normal way IETF does things, and I struggle to 
think of any other time in my 30 year history with IETF, when 
participants have been told to NOT post to a mailing list until a 
meeting is held.

It makes me wonder if the idea is to try to use the meeting as a way to 
control or restrict the subsequent discussion.   And even if the context 
shouldn't be discussed here, it's hard to ignore it.

Keith

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:47:03 -0500

> participants have been told to NOT post to a mailing list until a 

I am quite sure I've heard chairs say in the past, "We're spinning our 
wheels on this topic. We're meeting at the f2f in a few weeks; let's put 
it on the agenda and hold off until we can discuss in person." And we've 
participated in a lot of WGs together.

And to be clear: "asked", not "told". As per my message:

"As to draft-knodel-terminology: The initial discussion (which I ask you 
to please hold until the interim, which Francesca and I will schedule 
ASAP) is about how to dispatch the document."

Perhaps the second statement was a bit stronger:

"So, again, let's leave this topic alone until the interim."

But still, other than the topics that I said were out of scope of the WG 
(the merits of the IESG statement, the commentary on tone and style, the 
definition of "racism"), this was an (admittedly strong) request of one 
of the chairs, not an order. The latter isn't in my job description (or 
so I've been told).

> It makes me wonder if the idea is to try to use the meeting as a way 
> to control or restrict the subsequent discussion.   And even if the 
> context shouldn't be discussed here, it's hard to ignore it.

I can only speak for myself and say there were no such motives on my 
part.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:50:01 -0400

On 8/14/20 1:47 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> wheels on this topic. We're meeting at the f2f in a few weeks; let's 
> put it on the agenda and hold off until we can discuss in person." And 
> we've participated in a lot of WGs together.
>
> "As to draft-knodel-terminology: The initial discussion (which I ask 
> you to please hold until the interim, which Francesca and I will 
> schedule ASAP) is about how to dispatch the document."
>
> But still, other than the topics that I said were out of scope of the 
> WG (the merits of the IESG statement, the commentary on tone and 
> style, the definition of "racism"), this was an (admittedly strong) 
> request of one of the chairs, not an order. The latter isn't in my job 
> description (or so I've been told).
>

Thanks for your response.  I suppose we could all use a bit of a 
break.   I'm sure it will be an interesting meeting.

Keith