Subject: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:15:11 +0000 (UTC)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-00

A contribution had been made to the work of
the Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (TERM)
mailing list. This may also be of interest to
a larger audience, so it's briefly mentioned here.

Hopefully, this will prove worthwhile.

Any related discussion should be directed to the
TERM mailing list at: 

[email-masked]

thanks

Lloyd Wood 
[email-masked]

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:10:20 +0300

On 2021-4-1, at 11:15, [email-masked] <lloyd.wood=[email-masked]> wrote:
> mailing list.

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) members are saddened to see individual participants subvert the efforts of the IETF to live up to its full potential as an open organization that lets participants from all backgrounds collaborate on building a better Internet.

Sarcasm and an "April Fool's" posting date do not detract from the underlying message this document sends - that ongoing efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in nature. 

Participants in the IETF agree to a code of conduct [1], to create and maintain an environment in which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect. This document not only disrespects the IETF participants that work towards more openness, it also can signal to currently underrepresented groups that their participation is not desired. This is harmful to the organization.

While couched as a joke, this does not change the fact that it is not in alignment with our code of conduct. While in the spirit of openness and the quest for technical excellence, contributions of diverse opinions are encouraged, they need to be done in accordance with the code of conduct, respecting the other individuals and opinions in the discussion.

Lars Eggert
IETF Chair, on behalf of the IESG

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154.html

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:18:47 -0400

Thank you, Lars and the IESG, for this very strong and clear stance. I'm 
really glad this has been handled so swiftly and without equivocation,

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:40:16 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 01/04/2021 20:10 Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>  

I am trying to make up my mind on this, so could you please clarify the following: what did you judge to be in violation of the code of conduct, the substance, the tone or the method (or all of them)?

In other words: is holding or expressing the opinion that "ongoing efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in nature" a violation of the code of conduct?

Or is it the fact that this opinion was expressed through a (mildly) satyrical text, rather than straightforwardly?

Or is it the fact that the text was posted through the Internet draft process?

Thank you in advance for the clarification.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:57:36 -0500

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:40:16PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> In other words: is holding or expressing the opinion that "ongoing
> efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested
> participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in
> nature" a violation of the code of conduct?

That would be Orwellian in itself, wouldn't it.  I await Lars' response.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:37:21 -0400

> Thank you in advance for the clarification.

I would also like this to be clarified.

Keith

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 17:24:17 -0700

There are obviously some things that we must not ridicule.

   regards,

   Dan.

On 4/1/21 1:37 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I am trying to make up my mind on this, so could you please clarify 
>> the following: what did you judge to be in violation of the code of 
>> conduct, the substance, the tone or the method (or all of them)?
>>
>> Or is it the fact that this opinion was expressed through a (mildly) 
>> satyrical text, rather than straightforwardly?
>>

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 20:20:59 -0700

[obligatory disclosure: this is not a statement of the IESG, and I did not
consult with any of my fellow ADs on its content before sending.  It is
shaped in part by some discussions we had, but the opinions expressed are
my own.]

> That would be Orwellian in itself, wouldn't it.  I await Lars' response.

I note that based on timezones, Lars is likely asleep and that both Friday
and Monday are public holidays in his locale, so a response from Lars may
not be forthcoming until after that.

As far as the quoted question itself, the answer is "no", and we tried to
indicate that by saying "contributions of diverse opinions are encouraged,
[but] they need to be done in accordance with the code of conduct,
respecting the other individuals and opinions in the discussion".

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 like (with []
indicating portions that only sometimes appear): "I believe that I
understand what you would like to have happen in this case, and it is
<restatement in my own words>.  [However, the actual text that you are
proposing in this draft seems to me to actually have the effect of
<something else>.]  This seems problematic to me because I think it will
cause <thing>, which I think is harmful.  [Additional justification of why
<thing> is harmful.]"  This makes it very clear that there is an active
attempt both to understand and acknowledge what the differing party wants
to do, and to provide a causality chain to harm that may be caused by that
proposal.  It also provides ample opportunities to clarify miscommunication
or misundersatnding, as well as to determine whether any deviations between
the stated intent and the implications of the specific wording of the
proposal are inadvertent.

But, while this approach is pretty reliable, it is also a lot of work!  So
it's perfectly understandable and normal to only use a subset of it, or
other forms of discourse, depending on the situation.

I believe that in some situations, satire is a prefecly usable technique
and can be a good tool for conveying sentiments akin to those I summarize
above as "this sees problematic to me because I think it will cause
<thing>, which I think is harmful".  But it, by itself, does essentially
nothing to cover the "I understand what you would like to have happen" or
"however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft seems to me
to actually have the effect of <something else>" parts, and if those cannot
be filled in in some other way, it's not a very effective mode of
communication, at least for a technical discussion.  Implicitly asking the
reader to put in the effort to backfill those other steps can be
disrespectful, especially when there is a large gap to backfill, because it
is asking the entire reader base to independently reimplement what could
have been provided once by the writer.  (The size of this gap will, of
course, vary from person to person and situation to situation, so
reasonable people will tend to be accomodating of some level of variation.
For some very well-done satire the gap is very easy to fill.)

Returning now from the abstract level to this specific draft: in this case,
speaking for myself as a reader, the gap between the presented satire and
my understanding of the intent of what is being proposed in the terminology
effort is so large that I simply cannot bridge it on my own.  The presented
scenario is so different from my expectations that it's not even a
"worst-case scenario" or "bad dream"; it just simply doesn't compute for
me.  Maybe this is a lack of creativity on my part, and someone will step
in and help show me what I'm missing, but I doubt that I'm alone in this
regard.  I would have expected a contribution to an ongoing technical
discussion to be respectful of the readership and ask less of the reader in
understanding what point is being made.  Otherwise, the satire just looks
like standalone satire and not a contribution to a technical discussion.
(I hope it goes without saying that there's nothing intrinsically
problematic about satire as satire, though IETF mailing lists are probably not
the best place for it.)  But, I'm willing to operate on the assumption
that we are still having a technical discussion about the proposed TERM
working group.

In that vein, Ipromise to put in the effort to receive and attempt to
understand any reasoning that is sent to me about why the proposed
terminology work is not something that the IETF should undertake.  I
especially encourage messages covering aspects related to what I write
above about "however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft
seems to me to actually have the effect of <something else>", since I think
I am seeing significant gaps between what the proponents of the work are
saying the work is intended to do and what the opponents of the work are
saying it will actually do.  The proposed TERM charter is currently on the
agenda of the 2021-04-08 IESG telechat.  Per
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/6yVtXkj3wJjQxQA29On8-Lyvwmw/
please send your comments to [email-masked] by 2021-04-05.

In closing, I'd like to follow up on a couple points from Lars' note.  While
IESG members are saddened by this draft, we do not claim a right to not
be sad.  Lloyd can post this draft, and the community members (including me)
can respond to it, and I am sad about what I see as a detrimental effect on
the organization, [1] but the draft is still up, and we are talking about it.
There were two other drafts posted today that were removed from the I-D
repository for being clearly in violation of the code of conduct, but Lars'
note says only that this draft is "not in alignment with our code of
conduct", which can cover many points on a spectrum.  I don't think this
says that Lloyd is bad or that Lloyd's opinions are bad, just that we can
do better at having a respectful technical discussion that is more closely
aligned with the code of conduct.  Nobody's perfect (we will never be
perfectly aligned with the code of conduct), and we understand that on
occasion we all will get close to the boundary of the code of conduct, and
that's not intrinsically a failing on our part when it happens.  What's
most important is that someone notices when we're veering astray and how we
respond when it's pointed out.

Thanks,

Ben

[1] I see this draft as having a detrimental effect because, in constructing
an elaborate work of (what I assume to be) satire but introducing it as "a
contribution" with no acknowledgment of its nature or attempt to "bridge
the gap", the author seems to be setting up the sense that the efforts
related to terminology are jocular as well.  I can understand if people who
are advocating the work feel disrespected when receiving the sentiment that
their effort is a joke, and I see how that would in practice make us a less
open organization.  While there is value in satire, if I have to estimate
the value that this draft, as presented (with minimal introduction on the
list) adds, and compare it against an estimate of the harm it causes, the
net effect seems more likely detrimental than beneficial, and so I am sad.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 21:31:54 -0700

I'm saddened and shocked at the inability of IETF leadership to
understand satire.

   Do you think that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" really advocated
cannibalism or was it, perhaps, a satirical response to a problem
that should not have been taken literally?

   I'll point out that 3 satirical April 1 drafts were deleted at
the vocal insistence of Niels ten Oever who produced his own unfunny
April 1 RFC. Lars dutifully responded on twitter that he was
removing these drafts, and received the applause of the censorious
who then proceeded to cheer their own contribution.

   Niels noted that people should make fun of those who have more
power then they do. Well I think it's obvious who has the power.
It's the people you're not allowed to make fun of.

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:18:34 +0900

Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> take an approach that produces messages structured roughly like

> But, while this approach is pretty reliable,

So, according to your theory, people in US can reliably determine
which party is better, Democratic or Republican.

To proof usefulness of your theory, please do so before applying
your theory to IETF.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

Feel free to determine Communist is best.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:56:45 +0000

>       There are obviously some things that we must not ridicule.

Yes. A group may decide that an absolutism argument for free speech is not worth the cost of the negative impact of some of those in the group. Generally the group hopes that the individual members all agree with such a trade-off, but particularly during a time of change, it can be difficult.

We call it being polite.

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:46:11 +0100

Salz, Rich wrote on 02/04/2021 15:56:
> Yes. A group may decide that an absolutism argument for free speech
> is not worth the cost of the negative impact of some of those in the
> group. Generally the group hopes that the individual members all
> agree with such a trade-off, but particularly during a time of
> change, it can be difficult.
> 
> We call it being polite.

Freedom of speech also gives us the right not to say things, if we feel 
that those things would be viewed as hostile.  This is not 
self-censorship, but the exercise of a right.  Politeness is the dial 
which shows us where that balance lies.

Nick

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:52:06 -0500

>    I'm saddened and shocked at the inability of IETF leadership to

+1

I think April Fools Day is a big thing in Europe, I have a feeling that US
is yet to understand it.

Behcet

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 08:55:34 -0700

> Yes. A group may decide that an absolutism argument for free speech is not worth the cost of the negative impact of some of those in the group. Generally the group hopes that the individual members…

   "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is 
utterly impossible to
parody the Woke in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine 
article."

   There. I updated Poe's Law for you. You're welcome.

   Dan.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 11:57:13 -0400

> Yes. A group may decide that an absolutism argument for free speech is not worth the cost of the negative impact of some of those in the group. Generally the group hopes that the individual members…

What's this "we" stuff?

I call it being extremely prejudiced, authoritarian, arbitrary, 
divisive, non-inclusive, and extremely detrimental to a culture that 
purports to make decisions by rough consensus.

Yesterday was the saddest day in IETF's history.  The new leadership had 
a chance to try to make the organization more inclusive and less toxic, 
and they blew it.  I'm not sure the harm can be repaired.

Keith

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:32:30 -0700

Hi Dan,

I'm having a hard time mapping your comments here to the words that I
wrote.  In the absence of some clarification on what stance you think I'm
taking and you are in opposition to, I don't think I can provide much more
in the way of a useful reply.

Thanks,

Ben

P.S. only two drafts were deleted (to my knowledge), not three.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 10:27:59 -0700

Hi Ben,

> in the way of a useful reply.

   You wrote: "satire is a prefecly usable technique and can be a good tool
for conveying sentiments akin to those I summarize above as 'this sees
problematic to me because I think it will cause <thing>, which I think is
harmful'" which seems like you just don't understand satire. It's akin to
having a tin ear for music.

   You go on to say, "I would have expected a contribution to an ongoing
technical discussion to be respectful of the readership and ask less of the
reader in understanding what point is being made. Otherwise, the satire just
looks like standalone satire and not a contribution to a technical 
discussion.
(I hope it goes without saying that there's nothing intrinsically 
problematic
about satire as satire, though IETF mailing lists are probably not the best
place for it.)" It was an April Fools draft! That's the whole point!

   I referred to Swift's "Modest Proposal" for a reason. Suggesting that 
poor,
hungry, (and large) families eat their children as a way of addressing their
plight was not a summary of "this is problematic and will cause <thing>".
It was not respectful of the readership and it didn't make accommodations to
the reader to understand the point being made. It wasn't concerned with "a
large gap to backfill" by the reader. It was juvenalian satire. It was 
brutal
and savage.

   Now regarding the 2 deleted drafts. One would have to believe that they
were serious to consider them violations of the code of conduct. Which
prompted my question about whether you thought Swift was really advocating
for cannibalism. Those drafts were obviously attempts at juvenalian satire
as well. Brutal ridicule. Rude, yes. Crude, yup. But satire. Yet you seem
to take them as serious proposals for the IETF. And that's really sad.

   My comment about the powerful being off limits from ridicule I think
should be obvious. There seems to be a very fundamentalist and extremist
religion regarding this stuff and blasphemy is not to be tolerated.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:57:12 -0700

Maybe management should just announce that satire is from now on is forbidden, as are April Fools jokes as gateways to satire.

Let's at least call it what it is, and move on (but don't forget to check the "I want to be part of the Nomcom selection" box on the 3 next IETF meetings).

On 4/2/21 10:27 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> looks like standalone satire and not a contribution to a technical discussion.
> (I hope it goes without saying that there's nothing intrinsically problematic
>    I referred to Swift's "Modest Proposal" for a reason. Suggesting that poor,
> large gap to backfill" by the reader. It was juvenalian satire. It was brutal
> and savage.
> 

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:07:54 -0400

On 4/2/21 1:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:

> were serious to consider them violations of the code of conduct.

I don't think this is quite right.   I would say instead that one would 
have to have good reason to believe that they were malicious, or 
insulting to one or more specific persons, to consider them violations 
of the code of conduct.

As I read these drafts, I don't think either of those considerations 
applies to any of them.

It's not wrong to express concern about possible ill effects of 
censorship and/or language policing.  It's not wrong to express concern 
about possible negative effects of privilege/intersectionality 
calculus.   It's not wrong to express concern about the difficulties 
associated with rules of social interaction that require us to remember, 
for each person, how they would prefer to be addressed and referred to.

(I personally favor trying to remember how each person wishes to be 
addressed and referred to, despite the obvious difficulty, because I 
believe it's far more important to respect people as individuals than as 
members of groups - especially groups that others might pigeonhole them 
into.  And offhand, I don't immediately know of a better solution.   But 
it's not wrong to question whether there is a better way to interact 
while still respecting people as individuals.)

(Here's a question: suppose IETF started optionally printing each 
participant's preferred pronouns on face-to-face meeting badges? Would 
that be more inclusive or not?   Granted that the proposed TLS extension 
is intended to be silly.  But the problem of learning people's preferred 
ways of being referred to is real, and such a problem exists in some 
cultures for slightly different reasons.)

What is wrong (at least for IETF) is to insist that certain opinions are 
sacred and beyond question, or to act as if certain people deserve so 
much privilege that their opinions cannot be questioned.   That is a 
great way to create an echo chamber and promote a culture of 
incompetence.   IMNSHO it has no place in an engineering organization.

One could reasonably ask whether these expressions are within a 
reasonable interpretation of the scope of IETF activity. Certainly 
Internet-Drafts are not intended for general commentary on society or 
culture, and IETF is under no obligation to permit that channel to be 
used to comment on any subject whatsoever. But if there's even a small 
possibility that IETF is headed in any of these directions, clearly they 
should be within scope for IETF discussion.   And the reaction of IESG 
clearly indicates that at least the concern about censorship and 
language policing is well-founded.

Keith

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 21:43:22 +0200

Keith,

while I think that the ability to express differing opinions is an important part of the openness that creates the IETF, we need to remember that this is not by itself an absolute value, but serves a purpose: enable productive discourse.

The two “Les White” drafts weren’t humor, they were intended to incite discord, not foster discourse.  (The draft about pronouns in TLS actually *was* somewhat funny, but Table 1 unexplicably fell back to the unacceptable approach of the other draft.)
There is nothing in the IETF that this “humor” tries to react to; it is just pulling in external strife that we don’t need.

Unfortunately, much of the discussion about the deletion is really a proxy about some other grievances that people might hold.  I’d prefer if we could handle these as such and let the two still-born attempts at humor rest in peace.

(Then there is the discussion about the other two drafts that this thread actually is about, which may have been preposterous, but not unacceptable to a level that would have justified their removal.  Again, please let’s discuss them, if that is necessary, separately.)

As a side comment, we also do value a certain level of transparency about authorship, which was not honored by the two deleted drafts either.  I hope that the rumors I’m hearing about the author of the other two drafts (who did honor the principle) now being harassed don’t substantiate; we might lose that principle altogether otherwise.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:53:25 -0400

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 08:20:59PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> 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.

Only satire or redicule (the emperor has no clothes) can sometimes
penetrate the aura of orthodox conviction, to at least make the orthodox
uncomfortable.  Though one should also be prepared for anger and
pitchforks.  Cognitive dissonance can be a risky thing to provoke.

For me, overt policing of what is allowed to be expressed, rather evokes
the Soviet Union's pervasive and brutal hypocrisy that enforced
conformity to dogmatic truths that were plainly at odds with reality.
Indeed the conflict between the truths and reality was an essential
feature of the system.  True loyalty to the party demands that the truth
be whatever the party says it is today.

Lloyd's evocation of Orwell is entirely apt, for what is truly
Orwellian, is not mere autocratic rule, but rather enforcement of
unquestionable dogma that binds one to the collective.

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.

This strains credulity, but one is expected to believe what the party
believes, and questioning it is taken to prove that one is in fact a
traitor to the cause (a bigot who secretly or otherwise aims to exclude
those groups).

The result is unquestionably exclusionary, but excluding "those sorts"
of people must surely be OK, after all they stand in the way of
inclusion.

I posit that more potential contributors will be lost on this long march
than will ever be gained by whatever comfort some new recruits to the
cause find in new jargon, purged of the sins of the past.  I have no
proof of this, it is a personal conviction.  Others surely share it, and
are likely feeling similary deterred from participating.

So yes, I do find the proposed language policing Orwellian, and satire
and ridicule more than deserved.

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.

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.

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.

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 09:20:23 +1300

On 03-Apr-21 05:32, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
...
> P.S. only two drafts were deleted (to my knowledge), not three.

That is correct, but some of the messages could easily have led to the impression that draft-wood-term-modest-proposal and/or draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-annotations were also affected.

I did glance at the two deleted drafts before they vanished, and I believe that the IESG took the right decision, and that any IESG of the last twenty years would have done the same thing.

I would also like to observe that neither sarcasm nor satire translate well into different cultures, and are notoriously confusing to non-native speakers of English, so they do not really have a place in professional activity.

    Brian Carpenter

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:25:01 +0200

On 2021-04-02, at 21:53, Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> proposed language policing

Hi Viktor,

I have a heck of respect for survivors of thought controlling dictatorships, so I’m not asking this lightly:

What the <> are you talking about?

Thank you.

(I have copied the proposed charter of the proposed WG below, for your perusal.
Skip the first two paragraphs, which are just background (*).  I can’t find a proposal for establishing a supreme soviet of terminology, and I trust that we won’t let the WG generate such a proposal in its Informational RFC.)

Grüße, Carsten

(*) Can we have headings in charters?  
So we separate background chatter from the actual charter?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/ :

The mission of the IETF as specified in BCP 95 is to produce high quality,
relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and
manage the Internet. IETF documents, including RFCs and Internet-Drafts, are
most effective when they use terminology that is clear, precise, and widely
accessible to readers from varying backgrounds and cultures. This maximizes the
benefits the IETF derives from its core principles, such as its open process and
volunteer core.

In the years leading up to the chartering of this working group, there has been
discussion in the IETF, in other standards organizations, and in the technology
industry about the use of certain terms (such as "master/slave" and
"blacklist/whitelist") in technical documentation and whether those and other
terms have effects on inclusivity. While opinions vary among IETF participants
about this topic, there is general agreement that the IETF community would
benefit from informational recommendations about using effective and inclusive
terminology in IETF documents.

The TERM working group is therefore chartered to produce an Informational RFC
containing recommendations on the use of inclusive terminology in the technical
work produced by IETF participants. The RFC will express general principles for
assessing when language is inclusive or exclusive. The principles should match
the expectations from a diverse set of IETF participants. The WG will identify
and recommend an external, independently-updated resource containing examples of
potentially problematic terms and potential alternatives to IETF participants,
in order to align its efforts with broader activities by the technology
industry.

The TERM working group is a focused group aiming to produce a single
deliverable. It is designed to complement other efforts at fostering inclusivity
in the IETF and will liaise with appropriate external groups, such as other SDOs
or industry initiatives, to coordinate.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:27:36 -0400

On 4/2/21 3:43 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> The two “Les White” drafts weren’t humor, they were intended to incite discord, not foster discourse.

Respectfully, I interpreted them differently.   (And I would prefer it 
if we didn't accuse others of ill intent without having considerable 
supporting evidence.)

Keith

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:49:30 -0700

A while ago (April 2020) partly in reaction to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_Protocol#Contested_deletion 

I started to write about April 1 RFCs and RFC 2324 in particular

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dzXfqjH1XRaEWh8keUhlg7BXrQYAUaePFNY8Z5thhgg/edit?usp=sharing

but I ran out of steam. Helpful comments, questions, co-authors welcome (via comments on the Google doc, not email) welcome.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 10:06:16 +1300

Keith,

> if we didn't accuse others of ill intent without having considerable 

Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, whatever the intent. FWIW, I found the "Les White" drafts pretty offensive, and unprofessional, even if I could discern a satirical aspect.

    Brian

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:29:44 -0400

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:25:01PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I have a heck of respect for survivors of thought controlling
> dictatorships, so I’m not asking this lightly:
> 
> What are you talking about?

Well, I'm talking about top-down expectations of language conformity.

> terminology in IETF documents.

Opinions indeed vary, to the point that the very notion of there being
such a thing as "inclusive terminology" is by no means uncontroversial.
What some see as "inclusive terminology" is for others "exclusionary
conformity".  One's personal hypocrisy filter can be a non-trivial
barrier to participation when the new improved terminology is grating,
and has the opposite of the intended effect (intruding social justice
frictions into previously neutral contexts).

> work produced by IETF participants.

This assumes that working groups are so inept as to not know the
relevant terms of art, and that the informational "inclusive
terminology" document will be a benign tool for authors and WGs,
with no stigma attached making tradeoff decisions that ignore its
recommendations in the name of clarity and continuity.

> The RFC will express general principles for assessing when language is
> inclusive or exclusive.

I think Shakespeare had a pithy metaphor about roses and the
importance of context.

> The principles should match the expectations from a diverse set of
> IETF participants. The WG will identify and recommend an external,
> independently-updated resource containing examples of potentially
> problematic terms and potential alternatives to IETF participants, in
> order to align its efforts with broader activities by the technology
> industry.

This will prove counter-productive.  It will be a cudgel to enforce
conformity to non-sensical in-group norms, and will be used to punish
and exclude the non-conformists.  Despite the best intentions of all
concerned I am confident that that outcome is inevitable.

The reactionaries will be identified and ostracised.

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 23:30:25 +0200

On 2021-04-02, at 22:27, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Respectfully, I interpreted them differently.   (And I would prefer it if we didn't accuse others of ill intent without having considerable supporting evidence.)

You are right that I don’t have a way to actually know about the intent of the individual.

However, the drafts were signed as “SJWs R Us”.  This is a clear signal that leaves actual evil intent, or that brain-drowning feeling of righteousness that leads to the stupidest actions that are so hard to distinguish from evil intent.

Apart from the specific instance here, I certainly subscribe to the principle of not attributing to malice what can be explained by, er, lack of foresight [1].

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:41:35 -0700

Hi Ben,
>shaped in part by some discussions we had, but the opinions expressed are

Ok.

draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-00 is, in my opinion, a social 
commentary formulated as a criticism of the IETF.  The first three 
words in the title of the draft is an indication that it is likely 
satire.  The sentence in Section 10 is further indication that the 
document was intended as an "April 1" document.  As a side comment, 
there was a discussion about such documents eight years ago.

The author attempted to draw attention to a problem.  Is the problem 
about acceptable terminology or something else?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 18:02:20 -0400

> Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, whatever the intent.

I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that concept of 
"offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's appropriate, because 
quite often I find that people have strong adverse reactions to things 
that need to be discussed, but they can't get past their reactions to 
see them.

> FWIW, I found the "Les White" drafts pretty offensive, and unprofessional, even if I could discern a satirical aspect.

I wish we'd stop using the word "unprofessional" because it's such an 
ambiguous word.  I've heard people accused of being "unprofessional" 
because they wore a hairstyle that made sense for the kind of hair their 
bodies grow; I've heard people called "unprofessional" because they 
dressed in clothes from their own cultures (even though there was no 
prescribed dress code).   I've heard people accused of being 
"unprofessional" because they respectfully expressed technical 
disagreements with their bosses. I've heard people described as 
unprofessional because they weren't herd creatures - they had different 
ideas than those of their colleagues.   So I've come to think of 
"professional" as just another kind of arbitrary prejudice that we'd be 
better without, an excuse to harass people who think differently.

So I wish we'd stop trying to make IETF "professional" (at least in 
those senses) - I think it impairs our ability to understand this hugely 
complex system that we've created, impairs our ability to function as 
responsible engineers.

But if we're going to use the word, we need to define what it means for 
IETF.   For IETF, professional should mean things like treating our 
fellow participants with respect, but NOT expecting people to accept 
ideas and proposals without question. Professional for IETF should mean 
making a genuine effort to contribute to consensus if at all possible, 
but without expecting people to buy into whatever proposal the "right" 
people are supporting.   It should mean letting leaders do their jobs in 
managing process, but also being able to question their actions, and 
treating them like peers in technical discussions. Professionalism in 
IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean acting like people are expected to act 
in corporate environments.

Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean never making people 
uncomfortable.  Willingness to be uncomfortable is a necessary condition 
to do this work.   This is not because people should try to make others 
uncomfortable for no good reason, but because/trying to wrap your head 
around someone else's mindset to see why you might disagree and how 
perhaps to craft a compromise is inherently uncomfortable./

I remember the first IETF meeting I attended, in St. Louis circa 1990.   
I was a starving graduate student who showed up because friends 
encouraged me to go and paid for my expenses.   I got to the hotel where 
the conference was being held and realized that I hadn't even thought 
about what to wear - I was wearing the t-shirt and shorts that I 
normally wore around campus.   I wandered through the hotel looking  for 
where the conference might be and discovered a large group mostly 
wearing t-shirts and shorts, and realized I was in the right place (in 
more ways than one).

IETF has always shunned the trappings of professionalism, much to its 
benefit.   It's survival as an effective organization depends on this.

Keith

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:21:08 -0500

> 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.

> [...]

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.

> [...]

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.

> 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.

+1

> participate.  That should be quite enough.

Nowadays it seems that is apparently insufficient.

Nico
--

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 11:35:29 +1300

Keith,

On 03-Apr-21 11:02, Keith Moore wrote:
> I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that concept of "offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's appropriate, because quite often I find that people have strong adverse reactions to things that need to be discussed, but they can't get past their reactions to see them.

Yes, and when that happens in a technical debate it is very damaging. I could give examples, but that would undoubtedly start a whole side debate about each example. The current context is not a technical debate, though. So I don't have a better definition than to say that something of a sociological nature that offends the majority of the audience is offensive.

> I wish we'd stop using the word "unprofessional" because it's such an ambiguous word.  

Yes, it isn't ideal for the reasons you give below. I don't have a better single word though. So: I found the "Les White" drafts seriously inconsistent with bullet 1 of section 2 of BCP54: "IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues at all times."

Regards
    Brian

> I've heard people accused of being "unprofessional" because they wore a hairstyle that made sense for the kind of hair their bodies grow; I've heard people called "unprofessional" because they dressed in clothes from their own cultures (even though there was no prescribed dress code).   I've heard people accused of being "unprofessional" because they respectfully expressed technical disagreements with their bosses.  I've heard people described as unprofessional because they weren't herd creatures - they had different ideas than those of their colleagues.   So I've come to think of "professional" as just another kind of arbitrary prejudice that we'd be better without, an excuse to harass people who think differently.  
> 
> So I wish we'd stop trying to make IETF "professional" (at least in those senses) - I think it impairs our ability to understand this hugely complex system that we've created, impairs our ability to function as responsible engineers. 
> 
> But if we're going to use the word, we need to define what it means for IETF.   For IETF, professional should mean things like treating our fellow participants with respect, but NOT expecting people to accept ideas and proposals without question.   Professional for IETF should mean making a genuine effort to contribute to consensus if at all possible, but without expecting people to buy into whatever proposal the "right" people are supporting.   It should mean letting leaders do their jobs in managing process, but also being able to question their actions, and treating them like peers in technical discussions.   Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean acting like people are expected to act in corporate environments.  
> 
> Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean never making people uncomfortable.  Willingness to be uncomfortable is a necessary condition to do this work.   This is not because people should try to make others uncomfortable for no good reason, but because/trying to wrap your head around someone else's mindset to see why you might disagree and how perhaps to craft a compromise is inherently uncomfortable./ 
> 
> I remember the first IETF meeting I attended, in St. Louis circa 1990.   I was a starving graduate student who showed up because friends encouraged me to go and paid for my expenses.   I got to the hotel where the conference was being held and realized that I hadn't even thought about what to wear - I was wearing the t-shirt and shorts that I normally wore around campus.   I wandered through the hotel looking  for where the conference might be and discovered a large group mostly wearing t-shirts and shorts, and realized I was in the right place (in more ways than one).
> 
> IETF has always shunned the trappings of professionalism, much to its benefit.   It's survival as an effective organization depends on this.
> 
> Keith
> 
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 19:22:53 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Brian> Keith,
    Brian> On 03-Apr-21 11:02, Keith Moore wrote:
    >>> Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most
    >>> egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a
    >>> reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive,
    >>> whatever the intent.
    >> 
    >> I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that
    >> concept of "offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's
    >> appropriate, because quite often I find that people have strong
    >> adverse reactions to things that need to be discussed, but they
    >> can't get past their reactions to see them.

    Brian> Yes, and when that happens in a technical debate it is very
    Brian> damaging. I could give examples, but that would undoubtedly
    Brian> start a whole side debate about each example. The current
    Brian> context is not a technical debate, though. So I don't have a
    Brian> better definition than to say that something of a
    Brian> sociological nature that offends the majority of the audience
    Brian> is offensive.

Might I suggest an alternative way to look at this?
I've found that talking about things in terms of offense gets free
speech advocates (including to some extent myself) upset, and takes us
one step further away from being able to think about the impact of our
words.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you, just providing an alternate
framework that I have found useful over the years as I have moved from
technical spheres to emotional ones.

I've found it more helpful to talk about when people in our community
are upset or hurt when they think about our words.
For me, I feel respected when people care about their impact on me.
I realize that is not universal, but I am also not alone in finding care
to be part of showing respect for me.
So, if I am hurt when you say something, I feel respected if you take
the time to think about that.
Could you make the same point without causing those feelings?
Even if you cannot--even if the very nature of what you are trying to
say is going to cause pain, do you take the time to stop and acknowledge
that?
do you take the time to care about and show compassion for the people
you're talking to?

For me, it's easier to see why failing to do that is exclusionary than
it is when we take things one step removed and start talking about
offense.

Now let us come to "A Modest Proposal."
This is not the first time that satirical essay has come up in the IETF
context.
Ted Hardie used it a couple of times I can remember, and I don't think
he was the first in my history in the IETF.
And yet several of those times, specific people in our community spoke
up and said that because of their background, they felt excluded, hurt,
or offended by that particular reference.

So, we as a community have history.  We know that essay strikes at
people because of their racial or other aspects of their background.

USING THAT REFERENCE WITHOUT TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT IS DISRESPECTFUL
and EXCLUSIONARY TOWARD CURRENT CONTRIBUTORS.
If you're going to make a "modest proposal," you'd better be explaining
why you chose to do something that is hurtful.
What other options did you consider?  Why could you not make your point
that way?
And if you still choose that option, are you expressing regret when
people are hurt or uncomfortable because of the reference you choose?
In the specific case of "A Modest Proposal," I don't personally think
there's ever a need to use that reference in the IETF.
But even if you disagree with me, you could do a lot more to show
respect for your fellow contributors than people have done in this
instance.

And no, I'm not saying you need to hold back from expressing
controversial opinions even if you know or suspect people will feel hurt
when they hear the opinion.
Even then, you can show compassion, and regret the pain you cause while
still concluding it is necessary.

--Sam

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:09:35 -0700

One way to assess intent is correlate with the amount of effort put into
finding other, less offensive methods of making a point.

That's the main argument for why it id ok to have rules that require
assessment of author's intent.

--
https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:42:41 -0400

>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Masinter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Larry> One way to assess intent is correlate with the amount of
    Larry> effort put into finding other, less offensive methods of
    Larry> making a point.

Why assess that?
If I know I'm skating close to an edge that is likely to get my audience
to be upset, I can explicitly talk about why I chose what I did and work
on building connection and empathy with them.

You don't need to assess my intent; you can instead look at what I
actually did, including the steps I chose to find empathy (and wrote
about) as part of the mix.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 18:20:54 -0700

On 4/2/21 4:22 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
[snip]
> or offended by that particular reference.

   As a member of the Roman Catholic church and a man of Irish heritage I
guess I should be able to claim that my background caused me to be hurt
by Swift's satire. But while I'm Irish Catholic, I'm also an adult and,
though some may quibble, a reasonable person so I am not offended by
Swift's satirical essay.

> people because of their racial or other aspects of their background.

   No, "we" don't. I have actually no idea what you're talking about or
who these "specific people in our community" were.

   I notice you use very active verbs, verbs that can imply violence.
You say a few pieces of paper "strikes at people". No. No they don't.
They just lie there. They are inanimate. People can read them and be
offended but that's on them.

> and EXCLUSIONARY TOWARD CURRENT CONTRIBUTORS.

   I DISAGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY! THIS HISTORY YOU TALK ABOUT IS
NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. NOBODY IS BEING EXCLUDED BECAUSE MENTION WAS
MADE OF THAT ESSAY.

> why you chose to do something that is hurtful.

   Well, you're assuming that I made that reference knowing that it
was hurtful and that it "strikes at people". If you're going to make
that assumption you better be explaining why.

> What other options did you consider?  Why could you not make your point

   I considered very few. I thought "what's an example of extreme satire?"
That, naturally, came to mind. And no, I don't think I could've made my
point any other way. The "les white" I-Ds were not meant to be taken
literally. Same as "A Modest Proposal". It was satire. Extreme. Rude.
But satire.

> there's ever a need to use that reference in the IETF.

   And so now Swift gets cancelled (at least at the IETF). Why? Because
there's an assertion that someone somewhere got offended by that reference
at one time. That's it. Sorry Dean Swift. What drives acceptability now is
the lowest common denominator of feelings. If someone somewhere gets the
sads over reading something then that's it. Your essay is now officially
cancelled.

   Maybe there's a statue of him somewhere we can tear down.

> when they hear the opinion.

   Actually that is exactly what you're saying.

   I don't want to hurt people but when we decide what is acceptable
speech based on the reaction of someone to it, we turn the tables. Now
you can't say anything remotely controversial because I can come along
and claim I'm offended by your statement. It doesn't matter how innocuous
it was or what your intent was. What matters is how I feel. You will be
forced to retract it and if I push it, you will made to grovel and
apologize for causing me offense. It gives me incredible power over you.
That means you will be walking on egg shells and that is no way to go
through life.

   Dan.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 14:39:49 +0000

> The two “Les White” drafts weren’t humor, they were intended to incite discord, not foster discourse.

    Respectfully, I interpreted them differently. 

They had all the hallmarks of trying to stir things up for their own sake. Notably, to me, a childish pseudonym.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 10:44:12 -0400

> They had all the hallmarks of trying to stir things up for their own sake. Notably, to me, a childish pseudonym.

And you see other no purpose in those documents?   No effort to call 
attention to potential problems?

Keith

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 14:47:38 +0000

No. Did you learn anything new from reading them?  I didn't.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 10:49:34 -0400

> No. Did you learn anything new from reading them?  I didn't.

I didn't learn much new from reading them, but I learned a lot from the 
reaction to them.

Keith

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 18:51:42 +0200

On 2021-04-03, at 16:44, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> And you see other no purpose in those documents?   No effort to call attention to potential problems?

No potential problem that the IETF has or could do anything about.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 10:03:42 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 02/04/2021 05:20 Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>  

[similarly, what I said and will say in this thread is entirely in personal capacity]

Thank you for the comprehensive reply and the willingness to explain. Personally, if I had been the IESG, I would just have ignored Wood's draft, recognizing his right to free expression and the right of other people (including IESG members) to think poorly of him. This is a subjective judgement; in doubt, I tend to err on the side of free speech, but I see why the IESG could rather think that the IETF as a whole should officially condemn the document.

Given what you say on the unproductivity of satirical tones within the IETF's context of technical standardization, if I were the IESG, I would consider discontinuing the April 1st tradition for the future or constraining its scope much more clearly. If all contributions must be serious, respectful and useful, satire - which is offensive by definition - has no place among them; satire on the IETF can be published elsewhere. I would however not put the IESG in the position of telling "acceptable", authority-sanctioned satire from "offensive" satire; that is typically the role of censors in non-democratic regimes. Again, this may be a matter of my subjective sensitivity.

Also, I have no idea of what was in the two drafts that have been censored, but if they contained hate speech, it was absolutely appropriate to remove them. I am actually happy to see the IETF recognize that there must be limits to free expression on the Internet and that, sometimes, mechanisms for removing or blocking content must exist. This, if one, is the positive effect of this incident.

I think that we should just move on and continue with the work on terminology - which, notwithstanding the different methodological views on how to intervene, is an important piece of the picture - and with the work on all other obstacles against diversity, for which I hope we will soon get to a working group.

-- 
   - vb.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 17:49:25 +0900

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, whatever
> the intent.

OK. So, as reasonable number of people are offended by IESG,
IESG must be deleted, only after which, we can restore
constructive discussions.

 > FWIW, I found the "Les White" drafts pretty offensive,
 > and unprofessional, even if I could discern a satirical aspect.

I'm not sure, but, if you mean IESG unprofessional, I fully
agree with you. It is also impolite.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 18:08:43 +0900

Salz, Rich wrote:

> They had all the hallmarks of trying to stir things up for their own
> sake. Notably, to me, a childish pseudonym.

"to me"? Maybe. But, to confirm it with diversified view, could you
explain your points by quoting original text or, better, with
restored links to the original text?

Just stating one-sided view without reasons is not constructive.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 20:57:42 +0900

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/

> assessing when language is inclusive or exclusive.

Given that Martin Luther King Jr. acted, and people saying BLM are
seemingly acting, against *NOT* formally denied slavery but custom of
treating blacks as second class or secondary citizens where whites
are first class or primary citizens long after slavery was formally
denied in US, if some terminology must be banned in US today (*NOT*
necessarily in IETF), they are "first/second" or
"primary/secondary", which can safely be replaced by a lot
less offending terminology of "master/slave".

PS

Feel free to say that people with Asian gene, including native  
Americans, especially Latin Americans, are treated as third class or
tirtially citizens or illegal immigrants of US having lesser
status than blacks.

Then, "third/tirtially" may also be banned, though I have no idea
how they can be rephrased.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 14:34:12 -0500

On 4/4/2021 3:03 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> if I were the IESG, I would consider discontinuing the April 1st tradition for the future or constraining its scope much more clearly

For avoidance of doubt: the IESG has absolutely no control over what the 
RFC Editor and related functions choose to do except as it pertains to 
the IETF stream of documents.

The traditional April 1st RFCs are *not* part of the IETF stream of 
documents, and are managed entirely by the Independent Stream Editor.

/a

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 15:16:41 -0500

> and EXCLUSIONARY TOWARD CURRENT CONTRIBUTORS.

Let's start with the offensiveness of Swift's "A Modest Proposal".  I
read it yesterday.  It is extremely offensive.  It must have been
extremely offensive in 1729.  Swift clearly meant it to be so.  I won't
quote any of the offensive bits of it.

If we stop there, then we must thoroughly condemn Swift and -who knows-
maybe find new terms for "litte-endian" and "big-endian" and issue new
versions of RFCs that have those terms.

But Swift deployed this offensive satire for a noble cause: to shame the
UK into treating Ireland and Irish people and the poor better.  Swift
obviously did not hold any beliefs like what are contained in that
essay -- quite the contrary.

It is because of that noble cause that we tolerate the offensivness of
that essay.

Now let's talk about shared history.  I myself had never heard of past
controversies at IETF to do with A Modest Proposal, and I've been a
participant here for twenty years.  Perhaps Lloyd had not either.  It
would be exclusionary in the extreme to demand that one search or even
read decades' worth of IETF mailing list archives before participating,
or even just before posting satire.

> why you chose to do something that is hurtful.

"A Modest Proposal" can be quite hurtful if we ignore that it is satire
and its noble cause.  It's much harder to accept that it's hurtful if
one accepts that it is satire for a noble cause -- not that can't be
hurtful, but that we need a fairly high bar for that, else we might be
flooded with grievances.

> What other options did you consider?  Why could you not make your point

I posted separately about the context.  I can't speak for Lloyd, but I
suspect that he must have felt it was time to reach for satire given
that context.

As wikipedia notes, use of "A Modest Proposal" is something of a trope
in English writing:

| This satirical hyperbole mocked heartless attitudes towards the poor,
| as well as British policy toward the Irish in general.
|
| In English writing, the phrase "a modest proposal" is now
| conventionally an allusion to this style of straight-faced satire. 

Nico
--

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:51:29 -0700

Hi -

Is anyone else troubled by how this discussion has centered
on whatever inconvenience might be "suffered" by authors and
editors and has totally disregarded the considerations that
would lead someone hoping to communicate more effectively to
search for better terminology in the first place?

Does this organization to make the Internet work better, or
to stroke the fragile egos of authors and editors?  And do
those clutching their pearls at the thought of editorial
standards really think the IETF is a censoring government?

Randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:08:07 +1200

>> This is not the first time that satirical essay has come up in the IETF

I searched my archive. I found evidence of 10 threads, not including the recent ones, containing the phrase "a modest proposal", going back to April 1994. None of them are satirical. On that evidence, I suggest that very few IETF people have used this phrase in its Swiftian or satirical meaning.

I'm not contradicting Sam, but just reporting on messages that I've chosen to archive.

As I said a few days ago, I don't think that satire is very useful in our context, because it doesn't translate well and may very easily be misunderstood by non-native readers of English.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 17:15:22 -0400

> As I said a few days ago, I don't think that satire is very useful in our context, because it doesn't translate well and may very easily be misunderstood by non-native readers of English.

I can understand an argument that we shouldn't use satire in our context 
just like I can understand the argument that we should be careful of 
what idioms and culture-specific references we use. (Though actually I 
suspect satire is more universally accessible than the latter two.)

But is satire really the issue here?   Of those who thought the drafts 
deserved the responses they got, did they really not understand that the 
drafts were satirical?   Or did they think that even while realizing 
that the drafts were satirical?

Keith

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 21:43:19 +0000 (UTC)

Well, I had doubted if 'modest proposal' was widely cross-culturally understood as a marker, which is why I specifically called it out in my annotations draft. (I wonder how many in the IETF could state the origins of the big/little-endian terms.) But the narrow English tradition of that marker term should not be confused with wider concept of satire itself.

I did a similar search to Brian, but in google.

The term does appear in e.g.
https://ietf.ietf.narkive.com/cotEdgFG/too-many-notes-a-modest-proposal
And in the April Fools' context:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt

But, that google search also brought me:

A Feminist Collective's Reaction to a Male Chauvinist Pig's Proposal:
        People's Proclamation of Inclusive Feminist Terminology

https://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-cerfess-term-00.txt

Again, that is an anonymously-authored internet draft that I didn't write. I don't know who did, and I don't want to know. I think it's entirely safe to assume that Vint didn't write it, either.

Someone was quickwitted. I confess: I laughed.

Lloyd Wood 

[email-masked]

On Monday, 5 April 2021, 07:08:51 GMT+10, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Regards
  Brian

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:00:45 -0700

> search for better terminology in the first place?

   Well yea, given how thoroughly cancel culture has taken over,
I was concerned that some cop [1] somewhere would be gunning for
Lloyd. I didn't want anyone to take the fall on my account. It's
not a mere "inconvenience", it could be loss of career or
livelihood.

   So now all the cops will be told who their target is. Here
I am coppers, come and get me.

   As far as the poor people just looking to figure out how to
communicate more effectively, well, this is the IETF. Might I
suggest a local community college course.

> standards really think the IETF is a censoring government?

   And here you were just troubled the fact that the IETF wasn't
centered on the considerations of the poor people who are just
looking for ways to communicate more effectively? You ask
a lot of questions that normally would take rhetorically but
I don't think those are rhetorical questions.

   No one's clutching pearls. And before you reach for another
tired cliche, there are no fainting couches around here either.

   I'll answer your questions: no, no, and no, respectively.

   Dan.

> Randy

[1] Planet of Cops
     https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/planet-of-cops-50889004904d

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:02:05 +0000

reaction to them.

What new thing did you learn that you didn't already know?  I am sincerely curious.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:04:57 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 9:02 AM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 

That IETF is in far worse shape than I thought.

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:14:16 +0100

Nico Williams wrote on 04/04/2021 21:16:
> read it yesterday.   It is extremely offensive.

It really isn't: it's clearly satire that was aimed at an inexcusable 
injustice.  The material difference between it and the recent Apr 1 IDs 
was that that the Apr 1 IDs took aim at a set of measures intended to 
deal with an injustice.

Anything can be lampooned, but when the subject of derision is the 
discriminated rather than the people or things doing the discriminating, 
then that can easily veer into tasteless humour territory, which is 
often hilarious until it isn't, at which point offense will be taken and 
terms such as "unprofessional" will be given an airing.  Which is where 
we we seem to have ended up.

Nick

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:53:17 -0400

> search for better terminology in the first place?

No, I'm troubled by how the IESG arbitrarily used the Guidelines for 
Conduct as an excuse to suppress criticism and dissenting voices in 
order to promote its political agenda while at the same time violating 
those Guidelines.

Keith

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:02:22 +0200

On 2021-04-05, at 15:53, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> No, I'm troubled by how the IESG arbitrarily used the Guidelines for Conduct as an excuse to suppress criticism and dissenting voices in order to promote its political agenda while at the same time violating those Guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

More gravely speaking, the founding principle of the country I’m living in is that one needs to be vigilant against attempts to destroy its freedom.  I fully subscribe to this principle, even if it means that Nazis don’t get freedom of speech here.

(OK, the amount of transfer effort needed to translate these principles to what’s going on in the IETF right may be high — IETF is no country, but the point is that not every dissent is noble and deserves protection.  That is not an easy line to ride, but relitigating ad nauseam every decision the IESG makes to protect the IETF is not productive.  The submitter has even made known that he now considers his contribution rushed, and has apologized!  My mother would have said: Schwamm drüber.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 11:57:26 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 9:14 AM, Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The material difference between it and the recent Apr 1 IDs was that that the Apr 1 IDs
> took aim at a set of measures intended to deal with an injustice.

Intended, yes.  Fit for purpose?  Very much not.

My heritage is of a people persecuted for a couple of millennia
and not too long ago the victims of a genocide.

Each year during passover we read lines that are I think of some
relevance to this thread:

   https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/306911

	We were slaves to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt ...

   https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/847033/jewish/Avadim-Hayinu.htm

	We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt – now we are free

Unsurprisingly, the story of Passover is hard to miss in the language
of the African American freedom movement.  Let my people go.

To attain and retain freedom, we must not forget slavery, this is a word
to be understood, not suppressed, an institution to be fought where it
still exists, not ignored.

The notion that "master/slave" is offensive technical language is absurd
on its face.  What is offensive are moves towards language policing, which
is both unnecessary and exclusionary.

The other straw man motivating TERM is "whitelist/blacklist", but who were the
main targets of "blacklisting" in American history?  Disproportionately Jewish
leftists, not African Americans (against whom one could unfortunately all too
easily discriminate, if one were so inlined, without needing a list...).

If use of whitelist/blacklist occasionally helps to keep the memory of past
discrimination alive, all the better.  These words connect us to an unvarnished
past so we can do better in the future.  They do not target or oppress anyone,
they are a heritage.

The IETF is wasting precious energy contemplating needless expurgation of
its vocabulary that serves only to empower a strident few who would have
us daily atone for sins we did not commit.  This effort is plainly divisive
and exclusionary for many IETF participants (perhaps a minority, though hard
to say whether supporters truly outnumber those uncomfortable with where this
is heading).

The best way to be inclusive is to respect people enough to not imagine
them to be unduly fragile.  Encourage participation, listen, mentor.
Don't infantilize.

-- 
	Viktor.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:26:58 -0400

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

I don't think that's a valid accusation, or at least I don't see the 
similarity.   There's a huge difference between trying to illustrate a 
problem versus stirring up trouble just for the sake of amusement.

> More gravely speaking, the founding principle of the country I’m living in is that one needs to be vigilant against attempts to destroy its freedom.  I fully subscribe to this principle, even if it…

Ok but there's more than one way of interpreting that principle even 
among those who fully subscribe to it.  One is that freedom of speech 
(for example) must be preserved even though it sometimes makes people 
uncomfortable; another is that certain groups known to cause malice have 
their freedom of speech curtailed. Reasonable people should be able to 
disagree about which approach is better.

And if those Internet-Drafts have resulted in a conversation about the 
propriety of suppressing speech that is critical of popular ideas, I 
think that's a Good Thing, and probably a necessary thing, even if it 
makes some people uncomfortable.

I am continuing to press this issue because I wish to be vigilant 
against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and consensus-based 
decision-making.

I am also profoundly uncomfortable with an idea that IETF participants 
have a duty to not "rock the boat" because I've so often seen in other 
contexts how that social convention protects abuse, corruption, 
discrimination, and/or irresponsible behavior.   I realize that many 
people implicitly consider this duty part of "professional" behavior, 
and I explicitly reject the idea that it's desirable.   I do think that 
one should consider whether "rocking the boat" will make things better 
or worse overall, but there's no general duty to not do so.

> (OK, the amount of transfer effort needed to translate these principles to what’s going on in the IETF right may be high — IETF is no country, but the point is that not every dissent is noble and d…

This wasn't just any decision, it was a decision to suppress speech that 
was (in my interpretation) critical of potentially harmful ideas and 
even of IETF leadership.    I would recommend that decisions to suppress 
speech be taken with extreme care, without undue haste, and with full 
transparency.   And for reasons which should now be obvious, this should 
probably not be something that is within the purview of IESG or the IETF 
Chair.   We need to be able to trust the IESG to evaluate participants' 
contributions fairly, and such arbitrary actions undermine that trust.

And I would hate to think that we shouldn't allow rushed contributions.  
The fact that we effectively have deadlines means that many submissions 
are rushed.

Keith

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:02:53 +0200

The discussion in this thread has grown completely useless because it is layer upon layer of irrelevant distraction, discussing general statements, while the specifics are rather clear.  But to play on with the game...

> I don't think that's a valid accusation, or at least I don't see the similarity.   There's a huge difference between trying to illustrate a problem versus stirring up trouble just for the sake of amusement.

The effect (of someone stirring trouble because of a failed attempt at illustrating a problem or just for amusement) is the same (and I was admonished not to do too much inference about intents already).  If the IETF makes its rules in such a way that it can’t deal with griefers because it never can be certain about the intent, we are in trouble.

> Ok but there's more than one way of interpreting that principle even among those who fully subscribe to it.  One is that freedom of speech (for example) must be preserved even though it sometimes makes people uncomfortable; another is that certain groups known to cause malice have their freedom of speech curtailed. Reasonable people should be able to disagree about which approach is better.

“Uncomfortable” is not a useful scale.  Truth is often uncomfortable.  
I’m all for shutting up malice.  Countries have to do this with extreme care, organizations not quite as much.  Checks and balances are good in either case.

> And if those Internet-Drafts have resulted in a conversation about the propriety of suppressing speech that is critical of popular ideas, I think that's a Good Thing, and probably a necessary thing, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

I think it is a bad thing, because it is a waste of time to discuss nuances of general principles when the point was to act, fast.

> I am continuing to press this issue because I wish to be vigilant against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and consensus-based decision-making.

I understand that, but the level of noise is already a (D)DoS attack.

> I am also profoundly uncomfortable with an idea that IETF participants have a duty to not "rock the boat" because I've so often seen in other contexts how that social convention protects abuse, corruption, discrimination, and/or irresponsible behavior.  

There is a spectrum between the Catholic Church of Germany and a henhouse [forgive me if I shouldn’t use that term].  I think we are rather close to the henhouse.

And there is indeed a duty of members of an organization not to damage that organization.  That has to be balanced with other duties, as the Catholic Church of Germany is slowly learning now, but it is a duty.

> I realize that many people implicitly consider this duty part of "professional" behavior, and I explicitly reject the idea that it's desirable.   I do think that one should consider whether "rocking the boat" will make things better or worse overall, but there's no general duty to not do so.

Duty I don’t know, but there should be a reason for actions that waste a lot of energy.

> This wasn't just any decision, it was a decision to suppress speech that was (in my interpretation) critical of potentially harmful ideas and even of IETF leadership.    

Several people here have explained why this was the right decision.
Apart from overly general fundamental considerations, I haven’t heard anyone actually coherently argue it wasn’t.

> I would recommend that decisions to suppress speech be taken with extreme care, without undue haste, and with full transparency.  

At this level of generalization: Absolutely not.

I was in a WG meeting a couple of decades ago, chaired by the unforgettable Tom Taylor.
When the discussion completely derailed, he watched this for a few seconds, and then used all his physical presence to shout into the mike “THAT’S ENOUGH”.  
Speech suppressed, meeting saved.

Of course, we need appeals processes and all that to handle abuse of power.
We do have that!

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:30:34 -0400

> The effect (of someone stirring trouble because of a failed attempt at illustrating a problem or just for amusement) is the same (and I was admonished not to do too much inference about intents alr…
I might actually agree with the latter statement.   But it's really easy 
to dismiss constructive criticism for the wrong reasons.
> I’m all for shutting up malice.  Countries have to do this with extreme care, organizations not quite as much.  Checks and balances are good in either case.
If IESG are seen as arbitrary, their role in deciding community 
consensus is very much in doubt.
> I think it is a bad thing, because it is a waste of time to discuss nuances of general principles when the point was to act, fast.
IMO the undue haste is very much an example of the problem.
> I understand that, but the level of noise is already a (D)DoS attack.
Well, "noise" is rather subjective.   I wouldn't be bothering if I 
didn't think it was both important and fixable.
> And there is indeed a duty of members of an organization not to damage that organization.  That has to be balanced with other duties, as the Catholic Church of Germany is slowly learning now, but i…

But if the organization is already damaged, isn't there also a duty to 
try to fix it?

> Duty I don’t know, but there should be a reason for actions that waste a lot of energy.
Again, "waste" is subjective.
> Apart from overly general fundamental considerations, I haven’t heard anyone actually coherently argue it wasn’t.
I have made such arguments and have yet to see a convincing argument to 
the contrary.
> Of course, we need appeals processes and all that to handle abuse of power.

Better to try to have a constructive discussion first, I think, before 
trying those.

Keith

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:31:15 -0500

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 02:14:16PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> injustice.  [...]

Why did you not quote the rest of my post, where I said exactly that?

>     [...].  The material difference between it and the recent Apr 1 IDs was
> that that the Apr 1 IDs took aim at a set of measures intended to deal with
> an injustice.

This trivializes the debate way too much and ascribes way too much power
to the BCP the TERM would aim to publish.

If we wish to right injustices, perhaps we should look at what we can do
to discourage certain nation states from using prison slave labor,
having political prisoners, or harvesting organs from prisoners.  I
suspect an actual proposal to do anything about that (I've some ideas if
you like) would go down like a piece of tungsten thrown in the ocean
over the Marianas trench.

Nico
--

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:23:50 -0700

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

   So now we're back to making assumptions about intent?

> More gravely speaking, the founding principle of the country I’m living in is that one needs to be vigilant against attempts to destroy its freedom.  I fully subscribe to this principle, even if it…

   Nazi/Hitler references are the laziest of tropes and Germans don't get
a pass, sorry. Please try better next time.

   If you only support speech you agree with then you don't support freedom
of speech. How are you going to know that an idea can destroy freedom unless
you are free to discuss it?

   Now, regarding the drafts.... We have been told that race should be
discussed first and foremost in TERM [1]. We have been told that
"anti-racism" is in our future [2]. Now, what is anti-racism? Well,
it's active work done by a select few to make sure outcomes are, in
its eyes, "equitable". It's basically discrimination to correct for
(alleged) past discrimination-- "the only remedy to past discrimination
is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination
is future discrimination." [3]

   How would that work in an organization like the IETF that does not
have the most "equitable" of makeups in any dimension? That was what
the "Intersectional Dots" draft was supposed to address. Yes, it was
crude. But it was lampooning the belief that this is necessary by
attempting to discuss how it would be put into practice.

   It was done in the spirit (even though execution fell far short) of
Harrison Bergeron [4], that hilarious short story by the brilliant
American writer Kurt Vonnegut where the "Handicapper General" works
to put weights on the legs of fast and graceful people and earpieces
that buzz disturbing sounds into the ears of smart people in order to
ensure there is equity. Final, glorious equity.

> (OK, the amount of transfer effort needed to translate these principles to what’s going on in the IETF right may be high — IETF is no country, but the point is that not every dissent is noble and d…

   Whoa, hold your horses there. I apologized to Lloyd for any grief he
might've gotten by people who erroneously thought he wrote them due to
"Les White" having the same initials as him.

   If you want an apology, let me give you a classic non-apology 
apology: I'm
really sorry people can't joke about stuff that truly deserves mockery. I'm
sorry that a pernicious religion has swept the IETF and claimed adherents.
And I do apologize for not spending more time on the drafts to make them
better before publishing. I think it was you mentioned that the Pronouns
draft would've been better without the table and accompanying text. I agree.
Too bad there won't be an -01.

   regards,

   Dan.

[1] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/VknAFJsjSCtKNiHHUFKpX_kj608/
[2] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/AZXFpynMrCOUCBxaa8-l77XfQcI/
[3] 
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/andrew-sullivan-the-intersectional-lefts-political-endgame.html
[4] http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:49:32 -0400

You are free to disagree about the claims by many individuals that the 
uses of the terms master/slave are offensive.
The claims are not absurd, and attempting as you do to dismiss them as 
absurd is inappropriate at best, and possibly worse.

In my view, we all have claims to relevance for the discussion.  Please 
do not claim that being Jewish gives us special rights to dismiss other 
people's concern.  It doesn't.

With regard to the particular documents (which may or may not have been 
removed, I haven't checked), reading the Les White drafts, I had assumed 
(we all do make assumptions) that they were a troll's attempt to stir up 
trouble.  Knowing now that they are from Dan, I believe that he intended 
them as a means to point out his concerns.  I don't know if they should 
or should notbe( have been?) removed.  (I do not think they helped any 
aspect of the discussion or development of the community.  But that in 
and of itself is not a reason to remove them.)  I do know that doing so 
is not egregious and falls well within the judgment calls we expect our 
leadership to make.

One of the things I find important to keep in mind is that the 
denotations and connotations of words evolve.  It is not easy to tell 
when they have changed and how.  However, if they have changed to become 
offensive to a significant group of people, we should pay attention to 
that fact.  The fact that as far as anyone involved could tell they were 
not offensive at some time in the past does not give the terms immunity. 
  Nor does it make this process simple.  Heck, as evinced from some of 
the earlier conversations even figuring out what sources are appropriate 
to use to make judgments about the problem is hard.  That does not free 
us from an obligation to try.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:08:52 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 2:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> You are free to disagree about the claims by many individuals that the uses of the terms master/slave are offensive.
> The claims are not absurd, and attempting as you do to dismiss them as absurd is inappropriate at best, and possibly worse.

To be judged to be an offensive term, a term must be used and understood
to insult, demean, denigrate, ...

There's a rich supply of offensive terms in the English language, but
master and slave are not among them.

Show me a recent (last 50 years) documentary, newspaper article, book, play,
film, in which someone intends emotional injury upon another by calling them
"slave"?  (Sorry, BDSM literature doesn't count).

Where are the offensive uses of those terms?

I have a Master's degree, is that offensive?

This whole exercise is mere posture.  It reeks of "Yes minister" logic,
we must do something about injustice, this is something, therefore we
must do it.

-- 
	Viktor.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:17:41 -0500

> absurd is inappropriate at best, and possibly worse.

Assuming for a moment that that is exactly what Viktor was doing, I
don't agree that making such claims "is inappropriate at best, and
possibly worse".  And by the way, "worse" sounds to me like a possible
hint that next up is Viktor getting called a racist -- I hope I'm wrong
about _that_, but we should all edit ourselves to avoid giving the
appearance of making threats, something that would be not unlike not
using the terminology in question.

> In my view, we all have claims to relevance for the discussion.  Please do
> not claim that being Jewish gives us special rights to dismiss other

I don't think that's what Viktor was doing.  Please let us not
trivialize each other's arguments.

> removed, I haven't checked), reading the Les White drafts, I had assumed (we
> all do make assumptions) that they were a troll's attempt to stir up
> them as a means to point out his concerns.  I don't know if they should or
> should notbe( have been?) removed.  (I do not think they helped any aspect
> of the discussion or development of the community.  But that in and of
> itself is not a reason to remove them.)  I do know that doing so is not
> egregious and falls well within the judgment calls we expect our leadership
> to make.

I agree with this.

> One of the things I find important to keep in mind is that the denotations
> and connotations of words evolve.  It is not easy to tell when they have
> changed and how.  However, if they have changed to become offensive to a
> significant group of people, we should pay attention to that fact.  The fact
> that as far as anyone involved could tell they were not offensive at some
> time in the past does not give the terms immunity.  Nor does it make this
> process simple.  Heck, as evinced from some of the earlier conversations
> even figuring out what sources are appropriate to use to make judgments
> about the problem is hard.  That does not free us from an obligation to try.

A few things:

 - the desired effect has been had -- no RFCs will be published with the
   terms in question henceforth

 - I've long said that I have long avoided (some of) the terms in
   question in my professional life and that I'd be OK with publishing a
   BCP about this, but that I object to draft-knodel-terminology
   specifically, especially ascriptions of racism to the community (I
   don't care how theoretical they might be, and in -04 they were
   certainly not theoretical)

 - I object to the IESG's heavy-handed approach (for a partial list of
   incidents see my earlier post providing context for why participants
   might have felt the need to reach for satire)

 - I also object to the tenor of the arguments of some proponents

Trivializing the debate does us no good.

That said, obviously we should move serious debate to the terminology
list -to which I admittedly have yet to subscribe-, not because the
audience will be smaller there, but because that is what process
currently demands.  I fear debate on that list will be as polarized and
filled with trivializations as it has been here and on gendispatch, but
we should make an attempt to make and consider serious arguments.  I do
also expect consensus calls to be made that ignore or trivialize those
that get left on the rough side of consensus.  These expectations are
due to the behaviors I have seen so far.

Nico
--

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:51:08 -0700

Hi Sam,

[snip]

>or offended by that particular reference.

That approach was used on the mailing list many years ago.  From what 
I remember, it was not by Ted.  The objective was to bring a 
significant problem to the attention of other IETF participants.  I 
doubt that it was intended to offend a particular group of 
participants in those days.

The discussion is, on one hand, about freedom of expression, and on 
the other hand, which IETF Contributions can be published on the IETF 
web site.  There are similar discussions in other places [1][2].  At 
the individual level, the author of one of the drafts stated that 
dissenting viewpoints were ignored and that his intention was to put 
his dissent on record.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-parliament-twitter-canada-1.5892592
2. There is an on-going debate about Section 230, a U.S. law which is 
applicable to the LLC.  There is some information about that law at 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/section-230-the-internet-law-politicians-love-to-hate-explained/

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:44:47 -0500

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:51:08AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The discussion is, on one hand, about freedom of expression, and on the

FYI the discussion is not, for me, about freedom of expression, for we
do not have a right to have the IETF publish our documents as RFCs.  For
me this is largely about how the proposed change is justified.  Others
care more about whether it is justified.  It must be possible to offer
serious arguments about the justification of the proposal.

> other hand, which IETF Contributions can be published on the IETF web site.
> There are similar discussions in other places [1][2].  At the individual
> level, the author of one of the drafts stated that dissenting viewpoints
> were ignored and that his intention was to put his dissent on record.

Indeed, and that made satire a reasonable choice at this time, and it
clearly has had an effect.  Perhaps it even had the effect of causing
the community to notice that some have had their arguments ignored or
treated with condescention and moral disapproval without enough
substantive discussion.  Surely we want to take serious arguments
seriously so that we may be taken seriously in return.

Nico
--

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:29:59 +0000

Many of us feel it is more like: we need to be more inclusive, this is an easy first step, let us do it. Changing the language to be more inclusive conveys a better impression, and might change people's attitudes.  Some people will summarize this with the term "virtue signalling," often in an attempt to be dismissive. I'm okay with that, my response is "yes, we are trying to be virtuous and this is a first step."

Will it become a cudgel and used to toss people out? Viktor is confident that will be the outcome. I am equally confident it will not be, although I admit that it will be hard, for a while, for me to work with some people. On the other hand, Keith and I are managing to agree more than I would have ever thought possible, so perhaps there is hope for us all.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:56:26 +1200

Viktor,
> "slave"?  (Sorry, BDSM literature doesn't count).

"Intends" is irrelevant. It's the listener's/reader's reaction that determines
whether there's emotional injury.
 
> Where are the offensive uses of those terms?

I don't know where you live, Victor, but having lived for a couple of years
in the US, and like most other people being aware of the deep impact of
slavery, the Jim Crow era, and continued discrimination and racist systems
in the USA, I have no difficulty at all with the concept that casual use
of the word "slave" would distress the great-grandchildren of slaves.
That doesn't mean they'd tell you about their distress, of course.

The USA isn't the world, of course, but it is a large fraction of the
English-mother-tongue world, so it counts for something.

> I have a Master's degree, is that offensive?

Nobody has, to my knowledge, suggested that. It's use of the master/slave
metaphor that is in question.
 
> we must do something about injustice, this is something, therefore we

No. The logic is that we should do something about avoidable offence and
distress. And that's an ethical "should", not a interoperability "MUST".

   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:58:36 -0500

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 08:29:59PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Many of us feel it is more like: we need to be more inclusive, this is
> an easy first step, let us do it. Changing the language to be more
> inclusive conveys a better impression, and might change people's
> attitudes.  Some people will summarize this with the term "virtue
> signalling," often in an attempt to be dismissive. I'm okay with that,
> my response is "yes, we are trying to be virtuous and this is a first
> step."

You might say new terminology is more inclusive, or that old terminology
is exclusive, or just say this is the new style or something.  But
whatever you do, calling the community racist is not ok, just bullying
by intimidation.

> Will it become a cudgel and used to toss people out? Viktor is
> confident that will be the outcome. I am equally confident it will not
> be, although I admit that it will be hard, for a while, for me to work
> with some people. [...]

It's not very far from "it will be hard, for a while, for me to work
with some people" to "let's toss them out (this cudgel is handy!)".  If
anything, your reply strengthen's Viktor's argument with an existence
proof of the danger in question.  If you wish to dismiss that argument,
you could do worse than to stop the intimidation tactics and start
calling them out when you see them.  (Apologies for specific, egregious
incidents would be nice too.)

Nico
--

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 23:12:27 +0200

Skickat från min iPad

> 5 apr. 2021 kl. 22:31 skrev Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]>:
> 

Personally I think one should walk the walk first and then the talk takes care of itself ... but what the heck do I know. 

Virtue signaling is often dismissed not because "virtue is bad" but because it tends to lazily replace doing good in actuality. I understand specs is what we have in the IETF and therefore it is tempting to whack at that nail... I just think there are better ways if we really want to be more inclusive.

Leif

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 23:12:47 +0200

Hi Viktor,

I think there are two problems here:

(1) You treat the evolution of the English language that we are experiencing as something that should be subject to rational logic.
That’s not how it works.  I may not understand tax law (and it’s certainly not logical), but I’m still paying my taxes.

(2) You seem to assume that the IETF actually is in a position to change anything about this evolution.
Well, we may choose to be leading (OK, we already missed that), main stream, or trailing in adapting to it.
But that is about it (apart from the unlikely butterfly wing effect maybe).

So I still have Master’s students, but my principal git branches are now called main.
The latter caused some work, but I don’t resent it (in this case, the replacement is even actually better).

What we actually can do is agree on good replacement terms for technology that we own or considerably shape.
Discussion whether MITM/Middleperson attacks should be described as “on-path” attacks is very much on topic for us — in the groups that own/shape that technology.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 21:22:47 +0000

I certainly have never done that.

Do you have references where the IETF was said to be racist, as opposed to using racist language?

Please let me know what you think I need to apologize for; feel free to do it off-list.  Links will help.

More importantly, what intimidation tactics have I used?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:23:20 -0400

> Discussion whether MITM/Middleperson attacks should be described as “on-path” attacks is very much on topic for us — in the groups that own/shape that technology.

Well there are on-path and in-path attacks both of which could be 
described as <something> in the middle.   I think the terminology there 
is evolving anyway, not entirely because of the implied masculinity of 
MiTM.   But it's a handy example of why a one-to-one mapping between old 
and new terms should not be assumed.

Keith

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:31:10 -0400

> whether there's emotional injury.

But, however imperfectly in some cases, intent is also conveyed along
with the message, and much of the potential offense is the perceived
intent, not the vocabulary used.  One can be quite offensive with
perfectly ordinary words:

    https://www.you-books.com/book/P-Jillette/Every-Day-is-an-Atheist-Holiday

And vice versa.  When there is clearly no intended malice and the
context is benign, it is infantilising to impute offense to a class of
readers, as though they are so simple, they can't tell the difference.
The people we're aiming to not offend are not unable to discern context.

> I don't know where you live, Victor,

Manhattan, essentially in Harlem. OK, Harlem is technically across the
street.  There's a Mosque outside my window, and people of all races
and ethnicities in a building complex with O(3000) apartments.

To the dismay of my conservative friends, I get much of my news from the
left-leaning New York Times and the Washington Post.  (Pravda-on-the-Hudson
and Izvestia-on-the-Potomac).

> but having lived for a couple of years in the US, and like most other
> people being aware of the deep impact of slavery, the Jim Crow era,
> and continued discrimination and racist systems in the USA, I have no
> difficulty at all with the concept that casual use of the word "slave"
> would distress the great-grandchildren of slaves.

Well, I've been here 30+ years, am aware of the history both past and
more recent, and don't find the offensiveness of "master/slave" at all
credible.

> That doesn't mean they'd tell you about their distress, of course.

They have much more important things to be distressed about than
master/slave copies of zone files.  Discrimination in bank loans,
profiling by police, ...  Nobody calls them "slave", and learning
about slavery is important part of their education.

> English-mother-tongue world, so it counts for something.

We're fighting the wrong battle.

> metaphor that is in question.

I'm glad to hear it is in fact "in question".  For I'm very much
questioning the wisdom of imputing any issues to its technical
uses.

> distress. And that's an ethical "should", not a interoperability "MUST".

Sure, we should not use derogatory or slang terms.  We don't need an RFC
or a working group to arrive at this non-revelation.  Is there evidence
that the IETF's output has that problem?  Or are we manufacturing a
problem to be seen to be doing something for a just cause (I am with you
on the cause, but part ways on the means).

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:31:55 -0500

> I certainly have never done that.

I didn't say you did.

> opposed to using racist language?

draft-knodel-terminology-04

> to do it off-list.  Links will help.

I just did.  While I would discuss it on-list, I think it's more likely
that can obtain results if we continue off-list.

Nico
--

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:59:50 -0500

> > whether there's emotional injury.

Intent certainly matters to a large degree, and has to, certainly to
-for example- determine guilt and punishment, because Mens Rea is a very
good principle.

Also, if intent never mattered then we could never have satire, let
alone Swift's "A Modest Proposal", or any swiftian "modest proposal".

Complete disregard of intent cannot be a good principle, as/and it
cannot lead us to good outcomes.  On the contrary, then any claim of
offensiveness has to be equally accepted no matter how implausible.
Objective standards go out the window then and the only thing that
matters is who is most offended and loudest in their complaints about
it.

> perfectly ordinary words:

Exactly.  Intent must matter at least some of the time.

+1

This is partly why I object so strenuously to draft-knodel-terminology:
the rationale given is weak and patronizing, which in itself is
offensive.  It would not be hard to find existence proofs of people
being offended by that infantilization either: just go out on the street
and interview random people.  You can find such videos online, I'm sure.

I'd settle for a BCP that just merely indicates that these terms are now
not seen as polite, or something very dry.  I'd also settle for no BCP
since the effect of rendering these terms unusable in future RFCs has
been obtained.

+1

Our world is full of suffering.  Physical suffering.  Deprivation.
Poverty.  Hunger.  Political imprisonment.  Torture.  Sovereign crimes.

About these we have no proposals before us, therefore... we must
obviously not care!  And this lack of caring is offensive, and as is our
caring so much for much more trivial issues offensively trivializes much
more serious ones.  Ergo we should close down the IETF.  Or... accept
that we must pick and choose our battles, that the IETF is not a social
engineering entity and is a morally neutral tool (as tools are), and
hope that technology improvements lead to better societies (though there
is no guarantee of that), or at least some societies to be better even
if not all of them.

Nico
--

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:19:21 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 5:12 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> What we actually can do is agree on good replacement terms for technology
> that we own or considerably shape.  Discussion whether MITM/Middleperson
> attacks should be described as “on-path” attacks is very much on topic
> for us — in the groups that own/shape that technology.

If the new terms are more likely to be broadly understood than
the old, which are parochial and confusing, great!  I have no
issue with improving terminology.  The IETF should do that.

But if the change is for highly speculative harms, aimed at
purging old terms not because they're unclear, and the new
ones are better, but because we're expecting thereby to
redress societal ills, then I think we're sowing division in
our midst in the name of harmony and inclusion, and this is
not a wise course of action.
 
-- 
	Viktor.

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:25:02 -0700

Keith Moore <[email-masked]> writes:

> against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and
> consensus-based decision-making.

[Though I'm replying to Keith, I'm really picking one somewhat arbitrary
message to reply to here, as many points have been raised on both sides
that the below could apply to.  Thus, this is not directed at you
Keith.]

One important aspect to consider, that's been left out of this
conversation so far, is the other effect that these discussions have on
the body of the IETF.  What has been discussed, so far, is the potential
damage against openness if any form of censorship or code of conduct is
allowed.  What hasn't been discussed is the flip side of the damage to
the IETF membership body by having these conversations and documents
challenge the limits of what is acceptable speech.

In essence, which is more important: expanding our participation and
continuing our traditions into the future?  Or ensuring that we have
complete freedom of expression, because without that our future is
already dark.  Both are valid concerns, and every individual must
prioritize one over the other.  But without the IETF finding a
common-ground/consensus position, it is unlikely we will fair well
into the future in a polarized state.

These types of conversations have driven a huge number of people off
this list.  These types of conversations have caused a measurable number
of people to stop participating in the IETF.  Every person must consider
whether the loss of participants a good thing ("you must have tougher
skin", placing the blame on the participant) or a bad thing ("we need to
stop all forms of un-professionalism" at the expense of free speech).
The line is a slippery slope in both directions.

I've had the pleasure of speaking to lots of newcomers in the IETF in
the past N years (not sure of N).  Many are full of enthusiasm and want
to understand the culture so they can join in.  I've also been saddened
by a number of participants that have had rather negative experiences in
their early participation, and have vowed to never return.  Here are
some takeaways from past notes from the newcomers feedback session:

    - "I [now] fear coming here"
    - "the [a particularly tense WG] session was overwhelming"
    - "Someone actually said 'your draft is so long and so boring my
       company isn’t going to implement it, so kill it'; can companies 
       kill things like that?"
    - "The attitudes and egos can be surprising and brash; need to be 
       prepared for it"
    - "A quick-connections guide saw the company name on my badge and
    - immediately walked away from me.  I'm tempted not to
      put my company name on my badge next time."

Our culture takes a while to get used to.  It always has.  I've listened
to a lot of seasoned IETFers give advice to newcomers that include
warnings about how brash the conversations can be.  I myself have given
a lot of newcomers advice about how you can see people yelling at each
other in a meeting and then later drinking beers together in bars.  Why
are these warnings necessary?  What would happen if we didn't provide
them?  Should they be necessary?  Is this the cultural education should
be proud to provide?  Is it a core, necessary feature of the IETF that
is a requirement of its success?  It seems (the collective) we have very
differing view points about that.

What do we want the future make of the IETF to look like?  A technical
body where heated arguments can be had freely, regardless of the
chilling factor it likely has on the voices willing to participate?  Or
a more polite group with a wider collective cultural perspective that
requires its participants to refrain from extreme speech and voicing
extreme emotions?

It appears we can't have a middle ground?

This is your IETF.  What do you want it to look like?

-- 
Wes Hardaker

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:44:05 -0400

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 7:25 PM, Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I've been burned by fierce rejection/dismissal of ideas, and though I can
take it, I can see how it would definitely deter newcomers not yet sure of
their footing.  And though I am by no means traumatised, I do in fact have
to consider whether getting involved is worth my time...

So the culture could indeed be more cooperative.  But to me that has nothing
to do with the terminology issue, which does not address any of the issues you
raise.  The IETF is presently a highly competitive, confrontational environment,
and will remain so whether we speak of blacklists or blocklists.

I don't know what it would it would take to make the IETF more cooperative,
but I do know that TERM isn't it.

-- 
	Viktor.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:25:21 -0400

> that the below could apply to.  Thus, this is not directed at you
And I realize that you weren't replying to me specifically (and thanks 
for saying that) but I do have a specific response.
> allowed.

I would not characterize it that way, and I actually recognize the 
necessity of occasional pushback and even (in hopefully very rare cases) 
censorship.   But the problems created by vague criteria and secret 
enforcement are not limited to a lack of "openness".   Another huge 
problem is that vague criteria can (and have) been used by IETF 
leadership and others to suppress criticism of ideas and discussion of 
alternatives, both on topics of general importance to IETF and within 
working groups.

So my recommendations are:

a) the criteria for what's considered unacceptable need to be more 
precisely defined, and vetted by IETF consensus, and not merely what 
someone considers "unprofessional".  Such vague criteria practically 
invite abuse.

b) don't let the IETF Chair or IESG pick the enforcers; make the SAAs 
and anyone else who has a similar responsibility entirely independent of 
the IESG.   (This might be somewhat problematic because WG chairs are 
sometimes expected to fill that role, but perhaps WG chairs should be 
instructed to refer messages that they consider problematic to SAAs and 
let the SAAs do the enforcement)

Beyond that, I actually do believe that IETF discourse is necessarily 
different than one expects in, say, a corporate environment.   In a 
corporate environment being critical of the boss's or corporate 
overlords' ideas can be a career limiting move;in IETF everyone should 
be free to respectfully criticize any ideas, even the ideas of IESG and 
IAB members.   In a corporate environment there is generally centralized 
"leadership" (the degree to which this is actually true varies).   IETF 
is more like a hive mind, and it should be possible for any participant 
to introduce new ideas and thus "lead from the bottom" if those ideas 
are found to be attractive.   Also, the scope of what IETF is dealing 
with is greater than that of most corporations, the number of diverse 
and sometimes competing interests that need to be taken into account to 
make a good standard for the whole Internet is larger.   Companies can 
say "to hell with the competition" to a much greater degree than IETF 
can.   IETF is (and to the extent that it isn't, should be) also more 
diverse in its participation than many corporations.

So IETF has a mission that is distinct from that of any company. And 
just like some companies try to cultivate a company culture (which is 
generally considered perfectly ok), so IETF also needs its own 
culture.   Among the aspects of that culture that I believe are 
well-established are:

- Being passionate about our work is ok, and often a Good Thing.   That 
doesn't mean it's okay to be abusive, though sometimes people let their 
passion get out of hand and need to back off a bit.  Inherent in our 
work is trying to make tradeoffs between interests that don't 
immediately understand each other and sometimes don't even speak the 
same (technical or other) language.   Yes, this is often uncomfortable, 
and a willingness to tolerate discomfort is very helpful in being 
successful at this work.
- Anybody can participate, and we help newcomers deal with the learning 
curve of both culture and process.
- We are all in this together, working to make the Internet better.
- We're all supposed to be representing our best technical judgment for 
what's good for the Internet as a whole, rather than trying to push some 
company's agenda.
- We make decisions by rough consensus, which means (among other things) 
"don't look to the boss or those higher in the hierarchy for the right 
answers"
- Titles, position, who you work for shouldn't matter.   We mostly 
function as peers.   To the extent that we don't function as peers, it's 
mostly for the sake of process, not about deciding who is right.
- Competence is essential.   Nobody is competent at everything but 
having the background and insight (and often experience) needed to make 
sound technical judgment is necessary to participate effectively.

And yes, there's a learning curve.   That's necessary.   When everyone 
starts insisting that we all behave like good corporate citizens, IETF 
should disband.

> This is your IETF.  What do you want it to look like?

I want IETF to BE a place in which people are free to argue passionately 
for what they believe are better ideas and/or to criticize ideas they 
believe to be harmful.   At the same time I want IETF to BE a place that 
filters out technically poor ideas, or even ideas that others can't 
understand (yet), with relative ease rather than argue about them 
endlessly.   And I want IETF to BE a place where ideas are judged on 
technical merit (of various kinds) rather than arbitrary prejudice.

Keith

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:14:23 -0400

Mostly agreeing with Wes, I will just add that as a past member of two out
groups, (the Web community, Certificate Authorities) people have
deliberately made it clear I am unwelcome on several occasions in the past.

On one occasion someone hissed when I gave my company name at the mic. Oh
and when a working group chair was allowed to override the WG consensus on
a proposed change to DNS SEC by referring it to a 'DNS Directorate' and
folk wore 'black helicopter' hats to ridicule my protest at the abuse of a
cabal, yeah that was pretty shity of y'all. And that little tantrum put
back deployment of DNSSEC by at least six years.

Since I do crypto and other contentious stuff, at one time I did politics
at the national level so I am quite used to that. But that doesn't mean I
like it and most others are not willing to engage on those terms.

We have to be careful about bullying but we also have to be very careful
about rules against bullying being weaponized to bully. In one standards
group I was involved in multiple complaints against one particular
individual led to the need for a conduct code. The minute it was agreed,
that same individual used it to make a series of specious complaints.

This set of issues has particular valence in the US at the current time due
to local political issues and the politics of the US tend to make waves
throughout the English speaking world.

Rather than accept the fact that a certain set of language was used to
intentionally denigrate people on account of ethnicity, gender, etc. one
party has made even the acknowledgment that this occurred to be a partisan
political issue. It has spent the last four years demanding that everyone
take sides and now they are having an epic tantrum because along with the
vast majority of polite, educated society, we chose the side opposing
bigotry.

Why do people get so exercised by the IETF deciding to avoid the use of
master/slave terminology but not cry 'censorship' when we are told we must
use one particular dialect of SVG which is not supported by the current
version of any tool whether commercial or open source (I had to modify
Goatify). If freedom of speech is so important, why is nobody upset about
the lack of hard core porn in Internet Drafts and RFCs?

I think the answers to these questions are rather obvious. We are a
community and we live by a particular set of shared values and
understandings. And ever since the murder of Heather Heyer, by those
attempting to force the rest of us to suplicate to their symbols of
bigotry, we have been called to show our rejection of such symbols.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:31:25 -0400

On 4/6/21 3:14 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> intentionally denigrate people on account of ethnicity, gender, etc. 
> one party has made even the acknowledgment that this occurred to be a 
> partisan political issue. It has spent the last four years demanding 
> that everyone take sides and now they are having an epic tantrum 
> because along with the vast majority of polite, educated society, we 
> chose the side opposing bigotry.

Agree with most of your post, or at least I think I do.  But as for the 
above paragraph:

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, and it's not necessary to 
name them.   But in general, everyone thinks they're on the side of 
right and (when it matters) and that often implies that others are on 
the wrong side.   The more important the issue, the more likely that the 
opponents of a position will be cast as extremists.  Claiming to be on 
"the side opposing bigotry" implies that the other side is promoting 
bigotry.   Without my taking a position on this specifically (because I 
actually don't know what you're talking about), I suspect that the other 
side doesn't see it that way.   It's easy to mis-state or exaggerate the 
other side's position.    I would like to suggest that discussions will 
probably be more productive if we try to avoid doing that.

Keith

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:43:21 -0400

There is a difference between extreme views and extreme methods.

I am an absolutist on certain issues but I have never instigated the use of
force or put my opponents in a position where they have no option but to
use force for self protection.

It was abundantly obvious to which political party I was referring to in
this instance.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:47:16 -0400

On 4/6/21 3:43 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> I am an absolutist on certain issues but I have never instigated the 
> use of force or put my opponents in a position where they have no 
> option but to use force for self protection.
>
> It was abundantly obvious to which political party I was referring to 
> in this instance.

Maybe I misread the message, but I missed that you were referring to a 
political party.

Keith

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 14:56:36 -0700

> option but to use force for self protection.

   It's not about use of force. It's how you are characterizing the debate
as the "good, pure, moral people like me" and the "bigots, morons, and
troglodytes like the other."

   That kind of language is very divisive and it just makes people angry.
No one likes being called a bigot, no one likes having their motives
questioned (e.g. "language was used to intentionally denigrate people"),
and if you have to spend your time telling everyone how moral, polite,
and educated you are it's probably because you're not.

> It was abundantly obvious to which political party I was referring to 

   There are no political parties here.

   Dan.

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:32 PM Keith Moore <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 18:08:19 -0500

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> > I am an absolutist on certain issues but I have never instigated the use
> > of force or put my opponents in a position where they have no option but
> > to use force for self protection.
> 

In today's cancel culture, being called such a name is intimidating as
well.  Let's avoid intimidation and bullying please.

+1

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:32:16 -0400

> well.  Let's avoid intimidation and bullying please.

And that response was not an attempt to do just that?

The cheap rhetorical trick Dan was attempting here was to prevent anyone
raising the acts of bigotry and racism that have created the need for the
change in terminology by asserting that merely pointing out that bigots
exist is to call him one personally.

I am rather done with the bad faith arguments being made here.

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:02:42 +1000

Really, Dan?

"if you have to spend your time telling everyone how moral, polite, and educated you are it's probably because you're not."

or it's perhaps because you are facing some difficult questions about two bigoted, not very well thought out, and frankly racist anonymous drafts that you didn't know of or write but are now being associated with, and dealing with those questions and clearly setting yourself apart from those anonymous drafts, by demonstrating how moral, polite, and educated you are, is exactly how you spent your Easter weekend.

Your loud and frankly not very well thought-out public opinions need to be evaluated in light of your previous furtive actions, "Lester White". Your apology cannot be accepted.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

> On 7 Apr 2021, at 07:57, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> if you have to spend your time telling everyone how moral, polite,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 00:39:03 -0300

On 2/4/21 15:07, Keith Moore wrote:
[....]
> incompetence.  

FWIW, quite unfortunately, I've also seen this line of thought applied 
to technical discussions.

-- 
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 20:41:25 -0700

> Really, Dan?

   Really Lloyd?

> or it's perhaps because you are facing some difficult questions about two bigoted, not very well thought out, and frankly racist anonymous drafts that you didn't know of or write but are now being…

   Is this because you got called out by the SAA? You have to show everyone
that you're on the right side now? You're on the team that calls people
they disagree with bigots and racists? How sad.

   There was nothing bigoted or racist about my drafts. It was satire. It
just wasn't very good satire.

   And what's this "anonymous drafts that you didn't know of or write but
are now being associated with." I actually said, in an email to you (!!!),
that I wrote them. Now you're trying to make some mystery about their
origin or imply that I'm setting myself apart from them? What the hell?

   I also didn't say I was moral, polite, or educated. You've got it
exactly backwards.

   Not really sure why you're constructing this fiction....

   Also, before you start commenting on how I spent my Easter weekend, maybe
spend some time reflecting on what you did (get called out for by the SAA
for "unprofessional commentary"). Sort of like the pot calling the kettle
a utensil of color.

> Your loud and frankly not very well thought-out public opinions need to be evaluated in light of your previous furtive actions, "Lester White". Your apology cannot be accepted.

   Well no apology was offered. You're refusing to accept an offer of
nothing. Bully for you.

   Dan.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:37:34 -0500

> And that response was not an attempt to do just that?

You cannot seriously argue that I was intimidating anyone.  If you mean
that your baseless attacks lose potency when called out as intimidation,
that's your problem, but it's not intimidation or bullying on my part.

Nico
--

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 01:45:59 -0400

> that's your problem, but it's not intimidation or bullying on my part.
I was pointing out that you were trying to intimidate me.

I never called anyone in IETF any name. I referred to the fact that there
are external, real world political movements which are animated by racism
and other forms of bigotry and it is this fact that has made the
terminology issue a real one. I deliberately chose not to engage with the
arguments you and Dan had put up.

There is nothing 'baseless' in pointing out that a gang of neo-NAZIs
murdered Heather Heyer, it is a fact and there is a first degree murder
conviction as evidence. It is that political event and other political
event that have led to the current circumstance where a set of terminology
that was unfortunate but not particularly problematic in 2016 has become
completely untenable.

My argument was very clearly directed at the objections raised of the form
'the IETF does not need to follow the US polity in this' and 'there are
more pressing concerns'. Both of which might be raised in good faith but
neither of which have rather obviously been overtaken by the events I
referred to.

It is rather interesting that the people who claim to be so concerned about
'freedom of speech' are the ones who are now objecting to people raising
relevant facts because those facts lead to conclusions that make them
uncomfortable.

If we are not supposed to mention the violent acts incited by certain
politicians because this might make their supporters uncomfortable, perhaps
said supporters will agree on dropping master/slave which other people find
uncomfortable because of circumstances over which they have no choice or
control.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:34:51 -0700

On 4/6/21 10:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:37 AM Nico Williams <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 7:08 PM Nico Williams
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> I never called anyone in IETF any name. I referred to the fact that 
> there are external, real world political movements which are animated 
> by racism and other forms of bigotry and it is this fact that has made 
> the terminology issue a real one. I deliberately chose not to engage 
> with the arguments you and Dan had put up.

   I don't see a connection between the UK Labour Party [1] and the use
of terminology in the IETF.

> murdered Heather Heyer, it is a fact and there is a first degree 
> murder conviction as evidence.

   I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? First of all, "a first degree
murder conviction" does not mean "a gang" did anything. And second of all?
So what? What does her death have to do with anything being discussed here?

>
> My argument was very clearly directed at the objections raised of the 
> form 'the IETF does not need to follow the US polity in this' and 
> 'there are more pressing concerns'. Both of which might be raised in 
> good faith but neither of which have rather obviously been overtaken 
> by the events I referred to.

   I'm pretty sure that a great many people around the world don't
think the IETF should "follow the US polity". Otherwise people would
be making baseless accusations of "white supremacy" and "bigotry" and
"racism" on others.... oh wait.

   Yea, I'm pretty sure the IETF does not need to follow the US polity
in this. The current US polity is an example of lunacy on stilts.

> It is rather interesting that the people who claim to be so concerned 
> about 'freedom of speech' are the ones who are now objecting to people 
> raising relevant facts because those facts lead to conclusions that 
> make them uncomfortable.

   Again, there's nothing relevant to IETF about the death of Heather Heyer
and her death does not lead to any facts that, at least for me, are
uncomfortable. A tragic loss of life. OK, you did Charlottesville, now do
Chicago. And then Baltimore.

> politicians because this might make their supporters uncomfortable, 
> perhaps said supporters will agree on dropping master/slave which 
> other people find uncomfortable because of circumstances over which 
> they have no choice or control.

   Violent acts by politicians really don't have anything to do with the
IETF. And your mention of them doesn't make me uncomfortable. And they
have nothing to do with the use of "master/slave" in IETF documents.

   I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now. I thought I
did but this has just become really really weird.

   Dan.

[1] 
https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-discrimination-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-europe-6afeed8298a6f2b4e831e53382e632f4

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:06:27 +1000

Oh, sorry, I can see how my last email might confuse the hasty reader, since I used the sense of "you" differently between paragraphs. So, here's a rewrite:

more clearly, with the hypothetical 'you' I used keeping that sense of 'you' used above, and with a deliberate run-on sentence indicating the sense is continued, but now rewritten as referring to me, responding directly to that claim :

> or it's perhaps because *I was* facing some difficult questions about two bigoted, not very well thought out, and frankly racist anonymous drafts that *I* didn't know of or write but *am* now being associated with, and dealing with those questions and clearly setting *myself* apart from those anonymous drafts, by demonstrating how moral, polite, and educated *I am*, is exactly how *I* spent *my* Easter weekend.

> Your loud and frankly not very well thought-out public opinions need to be evaluated in light of your previous furtive actions, "Lester White". Your apology cannot be accepted.

and that's referring to the grudging conditional apology in Dan's list email of 6 April, my time.

(My own draft's suggestion of replacing 'you' with the more inclusive 'we' really doesn't work up there. Inclusivity does have its limits.)

I do find that talking about internet-drafts is quite relevant to the IETF and to this list. We should perhaps do more of that. I find I'll be reading this list more selectively from now on (because I have mailboxes, mail threading and mail filters - useful come-and-go distancing that I've recommended before) and that is, surprisingly, not due to a matter of terminology.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

I'll be parsing Padlipsky next!

> On 7 Apr 2021, at 13:03, Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Really, Dan?
> 
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:01:31 -0400

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:34 AM Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> conviction as evidence.

When members of the same group assembled in a torch lit procession a few
hours after the murder to chant 'blood and soil', and 'Jews will not
replace us', most people would consider the term 'gang' to be justified.

The IETF does not exist in a moral vacuum separate from the rest of
society. The events of the past four years have one of those consequences
and one of those consequences is the public erasure of all the symbols the
fallen regime attempted to protect: damnatio memoriae.