Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:39:14 -0700

On Jul 28, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On 7/27/20 5:54 AM, tom petch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> And that is where I part company with you (and perhaps the starting point of this thread).  To me it is fundamental that I cannot 'make' you or anyone else feel an emotion by what I say or do.  What I say may engender sorrow in one, anger in another, fear in another and so no (although it would not have been my intention for any of this to happen).  Rather, what emotion results is, in a deep sense, a choice made by the individual, perhaps affected by their personality, state of mind, history and so on; they have a choice to feel differently even if the conscious mind struggles to escape its immediate reaction.
> 
> I believe this is technically correct.   I also think that readers/listeners have a responsibility to try to avoid interpreting others' speech in an offensive, oppressive, etc., way unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
> 
> However I also observe that people can have a very hard time doing this...

I agree. I think the reason to talk about things like this is to help people make reasonable choices that trend in the right direction.

I find myself thinking that the robustness principle applies here, as it does in many places. There are people who seek opportunities to offend or to be offended, or behave as if they were doing so. What I’m observing right now is something I call an “professional wounded person”, which is to say someone who seeks the opportunity to be offended. To the belligerent actor, I would say that there is no long term benefit in it; they harm themselves more than the person they intend to harm. To the professional wounded person, I would suggest that they grow up. The average person isn’t out to hurt anybody. 

Where someone is actually being a PITA, deal with it. But in most cases, find out what they’re about first - it may differ, and differ dramatically, from one’s assumptions.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:47:42 -0400

> I find myself thinking that the robustness principle applies here, as it does in many places. There are people who seek opportunities to offend or to be offended, or behave as if they were doing so…

I find it very unhelpful to assume that someone is a "professional 
wounded person" even when that idea might occur to me.   I've seen 
enough of life to realize that people may through no fault of their own, 
be very sensitive to a great many things, for legitimate reasons which 
may not be obvious at all to most other people.    I try to assume good 
intention from all parties unless there's ample reason to believe 
otherwise.   Sometimes I give up trying to find common ground with 
someone - there seems to be a point of diminishing returns - but still 
try to assume good intention.   Sometimes, someone else figures out how 
to build a bridge with that person even when I cannot.

> Where someone is actually being a PITA, deal with it. But in most cases, find out what they’re about first - it may differ, and differ dramatically, from one’s assumptions.
absolutely agree with the latter.

Keith

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:05:19 -0400

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:40 PM Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> And that is where I part company with you (and perhaps the starting
> point of this thread).  To me it is fundamental that I cannot 'make' you or
> anyone else feel an emotion by what I say or do.  What I say may engender
> sorrow in one, anger in another, fear in another and so no (although it
> would not have been my intention for any of this to happen).  Rather, what
> emotion results is, in a deep sense, a choice made by the individual,
> perhaps affected by their personality, state of mind, history and so on;
> they have a choice to feel differently even if the conscious mind struggles
> to escape its immediate reaction.
> >
> > I believe this is technically correct.   I also think that
> readers/listeners have a responsibility to try to avoid interpreting
> others' speech in an offensive, oppressive, etc., way unless there's a
> compelling reason to do so.
> >
> I agree. I think the reason to talk about things like this is to help
> people make reasonable choices that trend in the right direction.
>
> I find myself thinking that the robustness principle applies here, as it
> does in many places. There are people who seek opportunities to offend or
> to be offended, or behave as if they were doing so. What I’m observing
> right now is something I call an “professional wounded person”, which is to
> say someone who seeks the opportunity to be offended. To the belligerent
> actor, I would say that there is no long term benefit in it; they harm
> themselves more than the person they intend to harm. To the professional
> wounded person, I would suggest that they grow up. The average person isn’t
> out to hurt anybody.
>

Hey Fred, I think you've got things a bit backwards here.

The whole point of the draft and statement that kicked off this thread is
that people hurt each other without intending to.  That is, the point here
is not the "professional wounded person", it's the "wounded professional
person", who has to deal with an elevated ambient shittiness level just
because of things that are ingrained in the way things work -- and things
that are invisible to a lot of folks because of that ingrainedness.  This
work is about surfacing those ingrained things, in hopes of reducing the
ambient shittiness level for the folks it matters to.

--Richard

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 18:49:19 -0500

+1

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 20:30:11 -0400

On 8/1/20 7:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

> The whole point of the draft and statement that kicked off this thread 
> is that people hurt each other without intending to.  That is, the 
> point here is not the "professional wounded person", it's the "wounded 
> professional person", who has to deal with an elevated ambient 
> shittiness level just because of things that are ingrained in the way 
> things work -- and things that are invisible to a lot of folks because 
> of that ingrainedness.  This work is about surfacing those ingrained 
> things, in hopes of reducing the ambient shittiness level for the 
> folks it matters to.

I have the impression that there are multiple kinds of ambient 
shittiness in operation, and different people are concerned about 
different kinds of shittiness.

Keith

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 16:52:34 +0900

Fred Baker wrote:

> What I’m observing right now is something I call an “professional
> wounded person”, which is to say someone who seeks the opportunity to
> be offended.
The problems are caused by "professional finder of non-existent
wounded people".

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 23:29:22 -0700

> things, in hopes of reducing the ambient shittiness level for the 

   One of the problems of the day is that people forget the Law of 
Unintended
Consequences. They think that the good intentions of the people who want
to enact some policy will ensure it will result in exactly what is intended.

   That never happens.

   If we allow the listener to decide whether the speaker's words are shitty
(and that their ambient shittiness needs to be reduced-- I know what you
mean here in your impreciseness and I would appreciate it if you were to
say it explicitly) we will further empower victimhood. People will have an
incentive to claim they are wounded in order to alter the balance of power
in a discussion, and if people can be expected to do anything we know they
can be expected to respond to incentives. Nothing good will come of that,
in spite of the good intentions of its proponents.

   Dan.

---

From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:43:27 +0000

+1

From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Harkins
Sent: 7 августа 2020 г. 9:29
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

On 8/1/20 4:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
The whole point of the draft and statement that kicked off this thread is that people hurt each other without intending to.  That is, the point here is not the "professional wounded person", it's the "wounded professional person", who has to deal with an elevated ambient shittiness level just because of things that are ingrained in the way things work -- and things that are invisible to a lot of folks because of that ingrainedness.  This work is about surfacing those ingrained things, in hopes of reducing the ambient shittiness level for the folks it matters to.

  One of the problems of the day is that people forget the Law of Unintended
Consequences. They think that the good intentions of the people who want
to enact some policy will ensure it will result in exactly what is intended.

  That never happens.

  Dan.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:21:11 -0400

> to enact some policy will ensure it will result in exactly what is

Literally the first sentence of my message is about people causing harm
without intending to.

If I'm going to be generous, I'll admit that in some idealized sense, there
are risks in both directions here -- restricting useful speech on the one
hand, alienating contributors who could do good work on the other hand.
But this thread itself is a testament to how free the in-group here feels
to express their opinions, and I've had several people outside that group
tell me how this toxic conversation is actively discouraging their
participation in IETF.  Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes"
if you want, but the road this leads down is toward a senescent,
obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.  People have better things to do with their
time than engage with an organization that doesn't care about them.

In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation is causing
the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving away new participants.
Which implies to me that we should let up on that and take into account the
effects we have on other people -- unintended or not.

--Richard

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 14:59:18 +0000

*     But this thread itself is a testament to how free the in-group here feels to express their opinions, and I've had several people outside that group tell me how this toxic conversation is actively discouraging their participation in IETF.

I thought we had already agreed a year or so ago that “the way we talk to ourselves” was, because of excessive familiarity and sometimes decades of working together, needlessly off-putting. After bubbling around a bit, it came up during the plenary for example. On a personal note, I have been giving the newcomer’s presentation for a few years now, and I look forward to the time when I don’t have to almost apologize for the harsh way the IETF can communicate.

  *     Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want, but the road this leads down is toward a senescent, obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.  People have better things to do with their time than engage with an organization that doesn't care about them.

Agreed.  I don’t think Dan or Ohta-san are going to stop contributing if we stop using a few words. If I’m wrong, I’m sure they’ll let us know. But we have much anecdotal evidence that our conversations, and some of our documents, cause problems for people.

  *   In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation is causing the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving away new participants.  Which implies to me that we should let up on that and take into account the effects we have on other people -- unintended or not.

I’ll go further. I believe this is a direct attempt to stop any forward progress.  Not changing things is their goal after all.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:14:27 +0100

"Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want, but the road this leads down is toward a  senescent, obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.  People have better things to do with their time than engage with an organization that doesn't care about them."

I  don’t think it is the language we use in our documents or the language we use in our discussions that is the cause of the IETF becoming obsolescent or irrelevant. It is our inability to set aside  our technical religion and continually reexamine the fundamentals, together with  the imbalance in power and money between the service providers and the OTT providers which leads to lack of investment that has set us on that path.

Stewart

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:43:27 +0000

>    I  don’t think it is the language we use in our documents or the language we use in our discussions that is the cause of the IETF becoming obsolescent or irrelevant. It is our inability to set a…

Nobody said it was *the* cause. And I don't understand your "imbalance" comment.

Getting new viewpoints and designs is easier with new people, than with older leopards trying to change their spots, and things their careers are built on, isn’t it? People who might be upset with words that an insular community finds acceptable.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:50:48 -0400

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> "Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want, but the
> road this leads down is toward a  senescent, obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.
> People have better things to do with their time than engage with an
> organization that doesn't care about them."
>
> I  don’t think it is the language we use in our documents or the language
> we use in our discussions that is the cause of the IETF becoming
> obsolescent or irrelevant. It is our inability to set aside  our technical
> religion and continually reexamine the fundamentals, together with  the
> imbalance in power and money between the service providers and the OTT
> providers which leads to lack of investment that has set us on that path.
>

This seems like the arguments that it's not CO2 that's causing climate
change, it's natural cycles or whatever.  Like, that may be true, but the
CO2 / toxicity certainly isn't *helping* the situation.

--Richard

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:15:37 -0700

On 8/7/20 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:30 AM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>>     The whole point of the draft and statement that kicked off this
>>     thread is that people hurt each other without intending to.  That
>>     is, the point here is not the "professional wounded person", it's
>>     the "wounded professional person", who has to deal with an
>>     elevated ambient shittiness level just because of things that are
>>     ingrained in the way things work -- and things that are invisible
>>     to a lot of folks because of that ingrainedness. This work is
>>     about surfacing those ingrained things, in hopes of reducing the
> Literally the first sentence of my message is about people causing 
> harm without intending to.

   Yea. There's a difference between someone not making a connection
between some action and some result ("causing harm without intending
to") and  someone initiating a plan of action with the expressed goal
of effecting some result but ending up with some completely different
unplanned result.

   I'm suggesting that you're in the latter category. You have some
goal in mind-- more participation from certain segments of society--
and you feel you will get to that goal by reducing what you refer to
as the shittiness of certain speech.

> If I'm going to be generous, I'll admit that in some idealized sense, 
> there are risks in both directions here -- restricting useful speech 
> on the one hand, alienating contributors who could do good work on the 
> other hand.

   Thanks for being generous!

> But this thread itself is a testament to how free the in-group here 
> feels to express their opinions, and I've had several people outside 
> that group tell me how this toxic conversation is actively 
> discouraging their participation in IETF.  Call them "professionally 
> wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want, but the road this leads down is 
> toward a senescent, obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.  People have better 
> things to do with their time than engage with an organization that 
> doesn't care about them.

   Unsurprisingly, my perspective is the opposite of yours. I feel that I
am definitely not in the "in group" having been accused of causing harm with
my wrong think, crossing "red lines", and being on the receiving end of
social pressure to conform with "in group" thought.

   I too have been contacted by people, both those who are with me in the
"out group" and those from the "in group" who wish to apply added pressure
on me to conform. Those applying pressure to conform repeated your
assertion that reading a word in an RFC will result in people becoming
emotionally harmed and becoming alienated and potentially not wishing to
take part in IETF processes. That assertion was never justified, it was
just stated more forcefully and in a more accusatory fashion (accusing
me of more bad think).

   The interesting thing is that in my off-list chats with the "in group" I
was told that the harm is to segments of society by people who these "in
group" members clearly were not part of. For example, there was a reference
made by a white cis male to harm caused by statements made in the TERF 
wars.

   So I did not use the words "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" but
I have come up with another term: offense-by-proxy.

> In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation is 
> causing the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving away new 
> participants.  Which implies to me that we should let up on that and 
> take into account the effects we have on other people -- unintended or 
> not.

   You are making an assertion (namely, certain words are "driving away new
participants") that I do not accept. If you want to restrict speech then
you have to do a bit more than make a simple assertion.

   By all means, let's take into account the effects we have on each other
but how about we refrain from projecting offense on behalf of other groups.
The practice of offense-by-proxy is somewhat offensive itself, unintended
or not, because it assumes a behavior of the imagined victim group that the
accuser's group does not take part in. It otherizes and that's offensive.

   Dan.

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:29:02 -0400

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 12:15 PM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> made by a white cis male to harm caused by statements made in the TERF wars.
> 

Isn't it possible that the people who might be offended or turned off by something aren't around to give you feedback, specifically b/c they were offended or turned off by those things?

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:37:43 -0700

On 8/7/20 7:59 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>   *   Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want,
>     but the road this leads down is toward a senescent, obsolescent,
>     irrelevant IETF.  People have better things to do with their time
>     than engage with an organization that doesn't care about them.
>
> Agreed.  I don’t think Dan or Ohta-san are going to stop contributing 
> if we stop using a few words. If I’m wrong, I’m sure they’ll let us 
> know. But we have much anecdotal evidence that our conversations, and 
> some of our documents, cause problems for people.
>

   Speaking for myself, I won't stop contributing until something or someone
stops me and this isn't going to stop me. I don't think I have used 
"master-slave"
in a draft or RFC but I have used the term "master key". And while I 
know no one
is demanding that term be changed _right now_ it's only a matter of time.

   People on the other side (from me) of this discussion like to talk about
how other groups and organizations have taken steps to address these
"problematic words" and so we should consider doing it too. So let me alert
you to another organization that has gone down this path:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/realtors-master-bedroom-bathroom-terminology/

Yes, it's not a "master bathroom" anymore, that's problematic. It's also
patently ridiculous! And that, I fear, is where we will be going.

Realtors: "we will no longer say 'master bathroom'"
IETF: "hold my beer!"

>   * In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation is
>     causing the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving away
>     new participants.  Which implies to me that we should let up on
>     that and take into account the effects we have on other people --
>     unintended or not.
>
> I’ll go further. I believe this is a direct attempt to stop any 
> forward progress.  Not changing things is their goal after all.
>

   I take issue with your mischaracterization of my statements. I am trying
to stop people from causing harm. In my view they are acting with the best
of intentions but the result will be unintended harm.

   Referring to one's policy preferences as "progress" and that anyone 
opposed
must therefore resist "progress" is a popular but lame rhetorical device.
There is no arc of history bending anywhere. We're all just sitting on this
rock flying through space trying to get along. Please give me the benefit
of the doubt that I want things to be better and I want progress just like
you do, we just disagree on how to get there.

   Dan.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:40:18 +0000

> Referring to one's policy preferences as "progress" and that anyone opposed

You are right and I should have used a more neutral world like “change.”

I apologize.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:53:48 -0500

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:37:43AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> in a draft or RFC but I have used the term "master key". And while I know no
> one

I haven't used offensive terminology in my RFCs.

That's the thing: do we even have a problem?  I've asked in this thread
that the author do a modicum of research to demonstrate that we do (or
do not).  To my knowledge there has been no acknowledgement of the lack
of evidence for the need for this proposal, let alone actual evidence.
It's really not a lot to ask.

I've also proposed that we use existing mechanisms to deal with
offensive language in RFCs.  There's no need to have this self-DDoS
except maybe as a way to broadcast that we're doing it (which might well
be the whole point of the exercise for all I know).

Nico
--

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:15:46 -0400

> hand, alienating contributors who could do good work on the other hand.

So far, so good, benefit of the doubt and all that, other than
neglecting to note that the risk of alienating contributors who could do
good work may be present in both options.  Indeed perhaps the
institution of prior restraint of speech, and the inherent dynamics that
creates, could to put off more contributors than cosmetic removal of a
handful of technical terms.

    [ No master zone file or name server ever oppressed a slave zone
    file or slave name server, and at the time of the McCarthy witch
    hunts, the alleged and actual, communist sympathisers were
    blacklisted for the content of their character, not the colour of
    their skin.  Yes, of course, in most other respects such freedom
    from racial discrimination was not a feature of the times, and many
    disparities remain to this day.  And yet, even given the unresolved
    social issues in the USA, and indeed in various other societies
    around the world, the purported benefits of rewording the IETF's
    technical terms remain unclear, and the proposed measures can be
    counterproductive also by focusing attention away from IETF subject
    matter onto the various social, ethnic, racial, gender, etc., roles
    of the participans. ]

> obsolescent, irrelevant IETF.

And here, is where the above comment is blatantly insensitive, and
exclusionary.  It assumes that:

    - Objecting to policing of language in this community still places
      one in the "in-group".  And that one can express such objections
      comfortably, without fear of repercussions.  It is far from clear
      that is still the case, indeed it seems evident that there are
      clear risks here in opposing the excesses of proposed reforms.

    - It stereotypes those objecting as insensitive and haughtily
      dismissive of social issues. 

    - It paints the objectors as senescent, obsolescent and irrelevant.
      And yet somehow purports to be fighting exclusionary language.

> organization that doesn't care about them.

The IETF is not here to care or not care about specific inviduals or
particular social groups.  The purpose of the IETF is to promote
interoperability of network protocols and applications.  The people who
are here, are those who can (perhaps barely) afford to care about
Internet standards, and have chosen to dedicate some of their time in
that direction.

Those who could be here, but are not, are largely not here because the
IETF process is slow and cumbersome, and they may have more expedient
options.  The proposed reforms do nothing to address this.

> take into account the effects we have on other people -- unintended or

The thesis that a significant number of potential new participants is
driven away from the IETF because of "senescent" and "obsolescent"
terminology is highly speculative.  It rather looks more like a
rationalisation, than a credible prior.

This thread was not here until recently, and yet throngs of newcomers
were not then clamoring to join the IETF then, who are now staying away
(for reasons other than COVID-19 restrictions).  The discussion has
actually been mostly tame, at worst at times somewhat pedantic, with a
bit of sophistry here and there, but likely even mellower than on some
of the more contentious technical issues.

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:30:49 -0700

> be the whole point of the exercise for all I know).

Where I grew up in France, we did study the history of the French
Revolution. We studied it in primary school, and then in high school.
There was a very different take on the "reign of terror". In high
school, we were using the official manuals that explained terror by the
need to defend the republic. They acknowledged the regrettable excesses,
but moved on quickly. In the catholic primary school on the other end,
the memory of these "excesses" was still raw. The ritual murders and the
wanton cruelty of the representatives, the genocidal repression of the
peasantry that dared to rebel against the draft and the religious
repression, six generations later the memory was still very much alive.
Want it or not, that still inform my instinctive resistance against
imposition of language, let alone the references to guillotines by some
of the radical protesters. I understand that my colleagues of Russian
origin have similar memories, only more vivid.

I do understand that many have the same reaction to "master-slave" as me
to "guillotine". Such terms are better avoided in technical
specifications. But at the same time, I shudder at the idea of any
"purity of speech" committee. Such committees tend to discard checks and
balances because of "purity", and that leads to detestable behaviors.
That's why I would rather rely on a shared culture that goes for clear
specification than on a power structure that dictates language.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:35:30 -0400

Hi Dan,

I'll just call out a couple points here:

1. The sentiment I'm expressing here is not based on the hypothetical
offense of some abstract, otherized group.  I am articulating actual
feedback from actual people -- doing actual good work at IETF -- who are
seriously questioning whether to just give up on the IETF as a result of
this thread.  One person's "offense-by-proxy" is another person's "standing
up for the little guy".

2. If you think that by virtue of being a white, American, male, long-time
IETF participant, you are not in an in-group for this list, you are
incredibly blind to your privilege.

3. You keep demanding evidence, even after several people have agreed there
is a problem here.  There's a word for this style of debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

--RLB

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:15 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> there are risks in both directions here -- restricting useful speech on the
> one hand, alienating contributors who could do good work on the other
> hand.
>
>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:37:43 +0000

>  Indeed perhaps the
    institution of prior restraint of speech

There are certain words that society thinks are not good. For example, on this list, if someone says "Rich that is really stupid, go f--k off" that might cause the SAA to contact the poster. Is that prior restraint of speech as well?  Or is that phrase being used to mark things you just don't agree with?
Are you opposed to all evolution of language?  If not, how do you think it happens?

We don't know who is not here contributing. We have anecdotal evidence that some find if off-putting. Some of that is reaction to the community reaction when changes are proposed.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:04:02 -0500

> specification than on a power structure that dictates language.

Je te remerci. Je suis d'accord.  La verité ce que La Terreur est bien
facile de réproduir.  Il faut que nous soivons en garde contre les
Terreurs et les Revolutions Culturelles.

Nico
--

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:43:16 -0700

Hi Richard,

On 8/7/20 10:35 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> feedback from actual people -- doing actual good work at IETF -- who 
> are seriously questioning whether to just give up on the IETF as a 
> result of this thread.  One person's "offense-by-proxy" is another 
> person's "standing up for the little guy".

   I received actual feedback from actual people who claimed they were
harmed by my first couple emails on the subject. What was the harm? One
was that this person was considering blocking me in his email filter
(i.e. putting me in a "denylist") because of my statements. The
harm would be to the IETF because it would prevent the kinds of fruitful
technical discussions that I had had with this person in the past.

   Now, that's the kind of thing an emotionally abusive person does. It's
"do what I say or you'll force me to do something you'll regret and it
will be all your fault". That's messed-up and I don't put up with those
kind of mind games. So while I too received real actual feedback from
real actual people I dismissed it.

   Your actual feedback sounds like the same sorts of mind games-- "if
this discussion continues I'll give up on the IETF and you'll regret
it!"

> 2. If you think that by virtue of being a white, American, male, 
> long-time IETF participant, you are not in an in-group for this list, 
> you are incredibly blind to your privilege.

   Oh please, spare me the white male privilege schtick. We both know
what we are talking about and that is the discussion on
draft-knodel-terminology and whether ON THAT TOPIC you are in the
"in crowd" or the "out crowd".

   You know what else is privileged? Company affiliation! I noticed my
opinion at IETF was discounted considerably when I left Cisco for a
start-up. Not part of the influential crowd anymore. So I'm keenly
aware of privilege at the IETF, don't worry about that.

> 3. You keep demanding evidence, even after several people have agreed 
> there is a problem here.  There's a word for this style of debate: 

   Oh, so several people agreeing closes off discussion, no evidence needed,
just a "I'm standing up for the little guy".

   I guess those several people are in the "in crowd", the privileged ones.
They are so privileged they merely need to refer to their existence to
squelch debate. Impressive!

   DNH.

> --RLB
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:15 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] 
>>>         The whole point of the draft and statement that kicked off
>>>         this thread is that people hurt each other without intending
>>>         to.  That is, the point here is not the "professional
>>>         wounded person", it's the "wounded professional person", who
>>>         has to deal with an elevated ambient shittiness level just
>>>         because of things that are ingrained in the way things work
>>>         -- and things that are invisible to a lot of folks because
>>>         of that ingrainedness.  This work is about surfacing those
>>>         ingrained things, in hopes of reducing the ambient
>>>         shittiness level for the folks it matters to.
>>
>>     Literally the first sentence of my message is about people
>>     causing harm without intending to.
>
>>     If I'm going to be generous, I'll admit that in some idealized
>>     sense, there are risks in both directions here -- restricting
>>     useful speech on the one hand, alienating contributors who could
>>     do good work on the other hand.
>
>>     But this thread itself is a testament to how free the in-group
>>     here feels to express their opinions, and I've had several people
>>     outside that group tell me how this toxic conversation is
>>     actively discouraging their participation in IETF.  Call them
>>     "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want, but the
>>     road this leads down is toward a senescent, obsolescent,
>>     In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation
>>     is causing the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving
>>     away new participants.  Which implies to me that we should let up
>>     on that and take into account the effects we have on other people
>>     -- unintended or not.
>

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:07:16 -0400

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:37:43PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:

> >  Indeed perhaps the institution of prior restraint of speech
> 
> There are certain words that society thinks are not good. For example,
> on this list, if someone says "Rich that is really stupid, go f--k
> off" that might cause the SAA to contact the poster. Is that prior
> restraint of speech as well?  Or is that phrase being used to mark
> things you just don't agree with?  Are you opposed to all evolution of
> language?  If not, how do you think it happens?

I'm fine with evolution of language, be it at times with resignation
about lost distincitions, that make it more difficult to express nuance.

I used the phrase "prior restraint" with care.  There's a difference
between being restrained and choosing restraint.  Good communication
is facilitated by the latter.

> We don't know who is not here contributing. We have anecdotal evidence
> that some find if off-putting. Some of that is reaction to the
> community reaction when changes are proposed.

The anecdotal evidence is just that.  There are blatantly obvious
barriers that actually shape IETF membership, that no rearranging
of the deck chairs on the Titanic can touch:

    - Participation is costly, in time, energy and even (prior
      to COVID) $$$ to to attend meetings in expensive hotels,
      pay for expensive dinners out with colleagues, ...

    - Participation often requires a lot of background knowledge
      in multiple disciplines that takes to accumulate.  One needs
      to be able to defend one's views in the company of seasoned
      experts.  This biases the membership towards mid to late
      career engineers, and suitably funded academics.

    - Access to educational opportunities, mentoring, ... and also
      ultimately personal interests and talent are rather uneven,
      biasing who goes on to become an engineer or academic, ...

The proposed reforms do nothing to address this.  I see tham as
symbolic, not substantive, and also exclusionary in the name of
inclusion and condescending in the name of fighting oppression.

I see evidence that others share similar views, and would find the new
normal oppressive/exclusionary.  So the proposed reforms are not an
objective net good.

The proposed cultural revolution promotes (exclusionary) privilege
shaming, which I've already seen abused in this thread, but it is
best to not draw attention to each and every transgression (thogh
I can point out some blatant cases if you don't believe me).

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:34:03 -0400

> this discussion continues I'll give up on the IETF and you'll regret

On the contrary, it is perfectly healthy behavior to refuse to engage with
people who dismiss your sincere concerns and whose behavior makes your life
more difficult.  And to communicate to them that their behavior is causing
you to disengage.

And it's a healthy reaction to respond to that feedback by reflecting on
whether the behavior that's driving people away is really worth that
consequence.

--RLB

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:13:36 -0500

> Terreurs et les Revolutions Culturelles.

Typo: soyons

Et aussi j'oubli mon français.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:21:48 -0700

On 8/7/20 12:34 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:43 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] 
> On the contrary, it is perfectly healthy behavior to refuse to engage 
> with people who dismiss your sincere concerns and whose behavior makes 
> your life more difficult. And to communicate to them that their 
> behavior is causing you to disengage.

   On the contrary, it's a sign of emotionally abusive individual to appeal
to feelings and deny agency for action or project responsibility onto 
others.
"You're hurting me for not doing what I want" is a warning sign of an
abusive personality.

   We shouldn't encourage or reward such manipulative behavior or we'll end
up getting more of it.

   DNH.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 08:48:46 +1200

Viktor,

On 08-Aug-20 07:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
...
> So the proposed reforms are not an
> objective net good.
> 
> The proposed cultural revolution...

I have no idea what you are referring to. All I have seen is an IESG statement including the words:

>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in 
>> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this 
>> issue going forward.

Please explain how that amounts to "proposed reforms" or "proposed cultural revolution".

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:22:37 -0400

Actually I’d like to suggest something different before anyone else responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week. The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let’s give it a rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.

Alissa

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Viktor,
> 
> ....

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:19:07 -0700

Hi Dan, Victor,
At 11:43 AM 07-08-2020, Dan Harkins wrote:
>Â  Oh please, spare me the [removed] privilege schtick. We both know

The discussion (please see topic) in another 
venue, which is unrelated to the IETF, turned 
into a United Stated v/s rest of the world 
arguments.  I didn't understand why you took a 
strong position until I read your latest 
messages.  For what it worth, I understood some 
of the arguments in your review, e.g. the $64 
required to access the first two references.

>>3. You keep demanding evidence, even after 
>>several people have agreed there is a problem 
>>here.  There's a word for this style of debate: 
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
>

It was customary to close a discussion or ignore 
a question when someone asked something which was 
inconvenient, e.g. a modicum of data, evidence, 
etc.  I came across that for 7704.  There is more 
than one problem in the thread.  I would not bother to locate them.

>of the more contentious technical issues.

There isn't any evidence that newcomers stayed 
away because of this thread.  At the same time, 
it is unlikely that someone new to mailing lists 
would post a message on the thread.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:35:48 -0700

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:23 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Actually I’d like to suggest something different before anyone else
> responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related threads to
> the side for now.
>

The problem is the IETF list reads like a juvenile "Men's Rights"
subreddit. I am not sure what to do about that, but it is leaving that
impression.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:54:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Dan Harkins wrote:

> say it explicitly) we will further empower victimhood.

Your proposed action could literally be the example in the dictionary
for the word "bullying":

 	seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).

Paul

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 22:45:05 -0700

>         seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as

Do you mean that Dan is the bully? I can't tell.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 22:56:47 -0700

>     seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as 

   No, actually it could not. And it "literally" could not too.

   I'm not proposing any action. I'm imagining that if we allow the action
that you seem to want, that we will have an undesirable and unintended end.
It is YOU that is proposing action.

   I don't seek to harm anyone by noting that incentivizing accusations of
bad think will result in more accusations of bad think. It's a simple
observation. Ditto intimidate. There is nothing intimidating in my
observation. You may not agree with it but then you aren't saying how it's
wrong, just that it's wrong for me to express it. And that's a very
different thing!

   Dan.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:07:29 +0200

> specification than on a power structure that dictates language.

I could not agree more.

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:37:39 +0100

++

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 10:00:41 +0100

I disagree with this approach.

We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international experts on technical language and the editors of other major standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us with a recommendation.

Stewart

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 22:22, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 04:01:12 -0700

Hi Alissa,
At 02:22 PM 07-08-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Actually I'd like to suggest something different before anyone else 
>responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related 
>threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion 
>of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week. 
>The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be 
>further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As 
>I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic 
>does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let's give it a 
>rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the 
>GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.

There was a practice to confirm working group decisions on the 
mailing list.  I could not find any message pertaining to that in the 
relevant mailing list archives.  What are the actions items?

I read a blog post published by the Center of Democracy and 
Technology about the draft.  Prior to that, I asked whether the draft 
was about etymology and the response was that it was about 
"power".  I could not find that listed as an objective or 
non-objective in the slides.

Would the email discussion be better if it was structured and managed?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 12:36:09 +0000 (UTC)

https://cdt.org/insights/pushing-internet-standards-governing-body-ietf-to-tackle-discriminatory-and-exclusionary-terminology/ 
“helps ensure that white supremacy has no quarter”
a quarter of a century ago, PPP was the biggest issue facing the IESG. Now, it seems that that has been replaced by the KKK.

Progress?
Lloyd [email-masked]

On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 21:06, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Alissa,

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 09:25:04 -0700

On 8/8/20 5:36 AM, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> a quarter of a century ago, PPP was the biggest issue facing the IESG. 
> Now, it seems that that has been replaced by the KKK.

   It's been replace by the specter of the KKK, which systemically lurks
committing micro-aggressions.

   As Thomas Sowell said last year:

       "Racism is not dead but it is on life support-- kept alive by
        politicians, race hustlers, and people who get a sense of
        superiority by denouncing others as 'racists.'"

> Progress?

   For those who want to keep racism alive on life support I think it is.
For everyone else, no, absolutely not.

   Dan.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:52:10 -0400

Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any result would 
have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than just the IETF.  (To 
avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 22:12:19 -0400

--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 13:52 -0400 Michael StJohns
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any
> result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than
> just the IETF.  (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).
> 
>> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international
>> experts on technical language and the editors of other major
>> standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us
>> with a recommendation.

Agreed, but with two suggestions/provisos (both derived from
comments made by others):

(1) Unless we want to push the IETF toward a relapse in which we
are a US-based body with some "foreigners" allowed to
participate, whatever mechanisms are developed need to be
sensitive to inappropriate terminology in other languages,
whether natively there, plausible translations, or
transliterations.  We don't need to boil all oceans all at once,
but we have to start with the understanding that US English is
not the only language or culture when inappropriate language
occurs.

(2) While I agree that this should be an RSE task, I think we
need to remember that we don't have an RSE.  While it might be
possible to ask John to start the research project (although
that is pushing the boundaries of what he signed up for) he
doesn't have, and it might be problematic to give him, the
authority to start making decisions in this space.  We should
also note that one reading of the trends in the RFC Futures
discussion (not, obviously, the only reading) is that we don't
really need an RSE, especially an RSE with any authority.  If
that was actually the trend in that area, then assigning this
type of responsibility to the RSE might be something of a
contradiction.

    john

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:42:00 -0400

While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE 
involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF 
could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines 
of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some words.  Here are some other 
words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of 
them.)

Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that 
following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting 
bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will 
there be an RSE?".

Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep 
the question in mind.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:07:07 +0900

Salz, Rich wrote:

> know.

I don't mind you and some people around you stop using
a few words, among tremendously many, implying black/dark
something evil/bad, only to find others, including most
black Americans and me, keep using most of them including,
but not limited to, the "few" words.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:13:03 +1000

If I'm not mistaken, the IETF hasn't had an RFC editor for... over a year.

Fixing that seems to me to be more important to the IETF and its longterm survival than debating or enforcing "correct" terminology, but what do I know?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood

> On 9 Aug 2020, at 3:52 am, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than just the IETF.  (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 11:20:40 +0800

Joel,

Inline plese.

> words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of 

I'm a bit reluctant to such a list, there is a risk that if the list
says instead of word 1 use word 2, we create a way of saying "word 1",
with another word, and over time the meaning will slowly change since
"everyone" know what was intended.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 23:30:44 -0400

While there are always risks in trying to guess how people will react to 
such things, I do not see it as likely.

For example, in replacing blacklist / whitelist with blocklist / 
permitlist (or similar terms) one actual gets clearer language that is 
closer to the intended meaning.

Similarly, in the discussion of DNS servers, it is pretty clear that the 
existing terms are not particularly good analogies for what is happening.

Yours,
Joel

PS: The lsit does not ahve to have just one alternative.  For some / 
many of the terms being discussed, the better words will be different in 
the different places the older terms were used.

PPS: I am NOT proposing any effort to rewrite existing RFCs.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 23:48:27 -0400

--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 22:42 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if
> the IETF could at least figure out how to create a working
> list along the lines of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some
> words.  Here are some other words that you could / should /
> might / ... consider using in place of them.)
> 
> Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough
> consensus that following it is a good idea would help us move
> forward without getting bogged down in either "whose job is a
> formal decision?" or "when will there be an RSE?".
> 
> Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at
> least keep the question in mind.

Yes, but that takes me/us back to suggestions made weeks ago,
i.e.,

(i) We treat this IESG statement and the underlying I-D as
having done a great job of increasing the community's
sensitivity to the issues of choices of language, largely
independent or how those issues are defined.

(ii) We conclude that we really don't need to get to an official
vocabulary, especially an official negative or discouraged
vocabulary/ work list.

(iii) With the community's new-found sensitivity, we encourage
document reviewers, especially within WGs in addition to IETF LC
(or any particular review team) to spot unfortunate language as
they read through documents.  When should language is spotted
(again, preferably early in the document life cycle) it should
lead to discussions with authors about whether the language is
appropriate and possible alternative.  Reviews during IETF Last
Call (or later) and public comments on the language should be
viewed as a last resort although possibly a necessary one.

    john

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 23:56:36 -0400

Let me approach the quesiton of what i sneeded slightlhy differently.

Do you think the General AD has enough support / authority to ask the 
gen-art reviewers to look for problematic language?  If so, what should 
she point to as examples of what one might look for?  (The gen-art 
review team has people with a range of language backgrounds.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:30:39 -0500

> viewed as a last resort although possibly a necessary one.

Exactly.  We don't need an official list of verboten language.  If we
do, I'll have to ask why not an IANA registry.  (FCFS might be "fun".
Obviously this is a reductio ad absurdum argument.)

Anyways, where is the evidence that we have a language problem?  I'm not
asking for evidence that the items on the proposed... verbotenlist are
offensive[*].  I'm asking for evidence that we [still] use them
regularly.

Can we see a thorough analysis of their use in IETF RFCs, together with
trend lines?  It's a small bit of research[**].

Propoent(s) should do the bare minimum of analysis to demonstrate that
there is a problem at least in those dimensions that are amenable to
statistical analysis (actual use, as opposed to actual offensiveness).

Supposing a proper analysis demonstrates no current or recent usage,
then what?  Would proponent(s) drop the matter, or press on?  If press
on, is the reason fear that uninformed authors might make use of these
terms and that uninformed reviewers, shepherds, ADs, and RPC staff might
allow their use to go unchallenged?  Would that be sufficient?  Would
such a fear be well-founded?  Are there other motivations I might be
missing?

[*] Their offensiveness may be subjective, though we can objectively
    agree that some/many claim that they are offensive, and perhaps
    whether that is sufficient to ban them.

[**] First, download all the RFCs, and maybe also all I-Ds, then write
     some regular expressions to search through them, then analyze the
     result paying close attention to the possibility of false
     positives.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:35:31 -0500

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:56:36PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> gen-art reviewers to look for problematic language?  If so, what should she
> point to as examples of what one might look for?  (The gen-art review team
> has people with a range of language backgrounds.)

Speaking for myself, I do.  It's not just reviewers, but also shepherds,
directorates, ADs, RPC staff, and the RSE -- quite the gauntlet.

Certainly this approach could be attempted, and if still I-Ds make it
onto the RFC-Editor queue with offensive language (where the RPC staff
could also object to offensive language), then we could revisit the
matter.

Most likely we've not had offensive language in use in recent I-Ds/RFCs.
We might not even have a problem to fix.  No evidence has been presented
that we do have a problem to fix.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 22:12:25 -0800

> such a fear be well-founded?  Are there other motivations I might be

I don't fully understand your argument, but I'll point out
that the list of usages in existing documents that Fred sent
out earlier can be used as the basis for answering questions
about trends, etc.  The document covers published RFCs and, I
think, current internet drafts, and contains 2060 instances of
"master," "slave," "whitelist," and "blacklist" once you
strip out citations of rfc-index.xml and rfc-ref*, representing
358 documents (yes, I stripped out duplicate .txt/.xml files).
Many are current ("master secret" ftw) but not all are, with RFCs
ranging from RFC 6 to RFC 8806.  Gratitude to Fred for
doing the work and sharing it.

I don't think the IETF is capable of this kind of change (and
question if it's capable of any kind of change, for that matter),
and I expect the most effective approach is to catch problematic
usages on an informal basis during the review process.  What to do
about editors who refuse to change problematic language is left
as an exercise, etc., if there's no WG consensus or IETF
consensus.  It would be awesome if the RSE kept an eye out for
things that slip through but I'm not sure that we would want to
formalize that.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

Software longa, hardware brevis

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 01:38:06 -0500

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 10:12:25PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> [...]

I'm asking for evidence that we have a problem.  I'm quite aware that
there are RFCs that use various terms some/many consider offensive, but
I expect most of those are long in the past, and have to do with DNS.

I'm curious as to whether the rate of usage of these has gone down.  Or
up.  Or sideways.  I'm curious about which areas have the most usage of
potentially offensive language.  And other possibly interesting results
that one might find as part of performing a thorough analysis.  This
seems elementary.  It should be proponents' burden to present such an
analysis.  I'm surprised to not have seen one from them.

> question if it's capable of any kind of change, for that matter),

Ignoring the rhetorical question of whether the IETF is "capable of this

> things that slip through but I'm not sure that we would want to

I.e., we (authors, reviewers, shepherds, ADs, RPC staff, RSE) can be
expected to exercise reasonable self-restraint without _prior_ restraint
because we're a polite, professional bunch.

Speaking as someone who long has avoided these terms, I believe we
should try that first.

Certainly proposals for prior restraint have caused some acrimony.  Most
likely the effect of causing more self-restraint has already been
obtained.

Because we're a polite, professional bunch, asking politely seems a lot
better than using a heavy hand.

The gauntlet to traverse in order to publish is such that I expect
editors will not refuse reasonable, polite requests.

Now, some requests may not be reasonable.  Or there may be disagreement
about their reasonableness.  That is to be expected.  We might have to
have these arguments more than once, whether we adopt prior restraint or
not.  But prior restraint is heavy-handed and should be avoided.

Nico
--

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:55:27 +0900

S Moonesamy wrote:

> The discussion (please see topic) in another venue, which is unrelated 
> to the IETF, turned into a United Stated v/s rest of the world 
> arguments.

That's incorrect. Most people in US are just comfortable to
say black/dark with negative meaning, against which some US
people (seemingly mostly whites) are arguing against trying
to use, in vain, IETF as a tool to validate their points.

IMHO, they should use better tool where opinions of whites
are unconditionally accepted.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 23:00:04 -0800

> I expect most of those are long in the past, and have to do with DNS.

Well, if you actually look at the file that Fred provided, you'll
find 34 8000-series RFCs (that series is obviously incomplete), 36
7000-series RFCs, 41 6000-series RFCs, 34 5000-series RFCs, 28
4000-series RFCs, 27 3000-series RFCs, 32 2000-series RFCs, 18
1000-series RFCs, 33 current working group drafts, and 42
individual drafts.  "Master secret" is, of course, used quite
heavily in TLS and TLS-related documents as one example of non-DNS
use.

I have no idea whether or not that constitutes a problem as you
understand it because I don't know how you define "problem" in this
context.  At any rate, the data are there and in a format that can be
easily searched, sorted, and summarized.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:04:26 -0700

I'd suggest a different approach, one based on tone. 

I am of an opinion similar to some comments made in this discussion, that some people's skin is too thin, drawing offense where neither offense nor offensiveness is intended or imagined. The fact that a controller that controls other controllers is called a "master" is not inaccurate, as draft-knodel suggests; it is an accurate description of the control relationship. The usage doesn't condone the behavior of the ancient Egyptians with respect to Hebrew slaves, or Hammurabi's laws (http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Hammurabi-Slavery.html), or the behavior of certain middle-eastern countries that have until very recently have held slaves (https://www.wya.net/op-ed/slavery-in-the-middle-east/), or the US/UK treatment of blacks in 1600-1865.It doesn't condone the treatment of black slaves in Brazil either, who as a fraction of the marketplace outnumbered US/UK slaves 10:1, I understand. It describes the relationship between a controller-of-controllers and the controllers controlled, which is simply a design fact.

What I would suggest is that reviewers look at tone of writing. If someone is making KKK-ish comments, they're out of line and the point should be made.

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some words.  Here are some other words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of them.)
> 
> Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will there be an RSE?".
> 
> Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep the question in mind.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 02:04:49 -0500

> 1000-series RFCs, 33 current working group drafts, and 42

Are there generally DNS- or SMTP-related?

> heavily in TLS and TLS-related documents as one example of non-DNS

I have long avoided "master/slave" in my work (except in open source
projects where the use predated my involvement and is baked into
interfaces).  However, how is "master secret" possibly offensive when
there are no "slave secrets"?  Assume I'm not a native English speaker
(I'm not).

Nico
--

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 04:43:41 -0400

> there are no "slave secrets"?  Assume I'm not a native English speaker

Barring sophistry, it is no more offensive, than a master key for a
physical lock, a Master's degree, a master crafsman (rather than a
novice or an apprentice), mastering a skill, ...

The use of "master secret" in TLS is plainly (again barring sophistry)
beyond reproach.  It is only when "master mumble" is used in constrast
to "slave mumble", that one might practice restraint in using the former
in order to avoid also then using or evoking the latter.

Since "master nameserver" and "secondary nameserver" are not a natural
pairing, and since in this case "primary" and "secondary" work equally
well or better, long before this thread, I've already been using primary
and secondary "nameserver" for many years, not because the older terms
are plainly offensive, but because the newer ones are a better fit.

But switching from nameservers to data, the primary nameserver for a
domain hosts its "master zone file", and this a more apt description
than "primary zone file" because there's not another managed zone file
for the domain playing a secondary role.  The copies of the "master zone
file" on secondary servers are "slave" (or perhaps "replica") copies.

There are only so many linguistic contortions one should have to go
through to address rather marginal gains.  After all, it isn't as though
the word "slave" has fallen out of use in polite company.  We still talk
about slavery past and present, using that word and not some euphemism.

There's reason to not use it frivolously, or when better alternatives
abound, but there's also no reason to avoid its legitimate use when the
alternatives are worse.

We can and should be expected to use good judgement, and be polite in
listening to and giving feedback.

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Nadim Kobeissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 11:05:57 +0200

I don’t mean to be pedantic but I also wonder what is going to happen once this ideology hits the chess, Go (the board game) and Othello communities. These communities are centered around “black” and “white” pieces that quite literally fight for “domination” and “control” of a board in a zero-sum game.

I hope I’m not giving anyone ideas here!

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 9 Aug 2020, at 10:43 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:19:48 +0000 (UTC)

The games have International Masters and Grandmasters...
some of whom are female, some of whom are feminists, some of whom are...

On Sunday, August 9, 2020, 19:07, Nadim Kobeissi <[email-masked]> wrote:

Nadim Kobeissi

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 20:25:18 +0900

> novice or an apprentice), mastering a skill, ...

But, "master/mister/mistress" implies that there are servants
or slaves and:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servus
	These words originate from servus, the Latin word for
	servant or slave.

In Roman era, all the servants should have been slaves.

> pairing,

I'm afraid you are ignoring history, though short, in US that
blacks were and, maybe, still are, treated as second class
                                               ^^^^^^
citizens long after enslavement was illegalized.

See, for example, speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.:

	http://okra.stanford.edu/transcription/document_images/Vol05Scans/25Sept1960_TheNegroandtheAmericanDream,ExcerptfromAddressatt.pdf
	It is a trite yet urgently true observation that if America
	is to remain a firstclass nation it cannot have secondclass
	citizens.

According to your theory, you should totally avoid saying "second"
or "secondary".

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Aug 2020 11:15:07 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international experts on technical language and the editors of other major standards
>such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us with a recommendation.

I have no idea where one might find international experts on technical
language, if such people even exist.

The IETF really needs to address this problem itself.

R's,.
John

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:34:12 +0000

>    I'm asking for evidence that we have a problem.

We don't know who has not participated because they found terminology off-putting.  How could we know?

We do have some data-points that show some are bothered by the language.  This discussion has also discouraged some, see https://twitter.com/rolandshoemaker/status/1292172589708664832

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:39:33 +0000

We are not talking about board games here.  Let’s stay focused and not go to reduction ad absurdum arguments. We are talking about the language used in IETF RFC’s.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:49:18 +0100

> On 9 Aug 2020, at 16:15, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
We could ask the OED people if they can point us such experts. It is possible that some of the to University English departments could point us in the right direction.

We can and should consult with the editors of the other major SDOs.

Since we apparently have no RFC editor in the pipeline (a more serious problem in my view) we could appoint an interim editor to work on this problem.

> The IETF really needs to address this problem itself.
We have the world leading expertise in the design of Internet protocols, but expertise at such a level on the use of the English language and it’s societal implications is not something we can reasonably claim.

Stewart

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Aug 2020 12:28:54 -0400

> We could ask the OED people if they can point us such experts. It is possible that some of the to University English departments could point us in the right direction.

Dictionaries are descriptive; they describe language as people use it and 
what the words mean in current usage.

We're talking about prescriptive rules.  I don't think our problem is that 
we don't understand what "slave" means.

> We can and should consult with the editors of the other major SDOs.

I suppose but I can't ever recall a time when we believed that the way 
that the IEEE or W3C or ANSI or ITU wrote their documents was the way we 
should write our documents.  (If we're going down that path, we can ditch 
our tools in favor of MS Word.)

This is a problem that the IETF really needs to solve itself.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 18:52:14 +0200

> This is a problem that the IETF really needs to solve itself.

While I agree with that, I also think there might be some help out there that we might avail ourselves of — maybe not so much in other SDOs, but in professional organizations such as ACM.

I just know some of us (me included) can’t help with this, for the same reasons that Baudis gives for his choice of the term “master” for the main Git branch in 2005 [1].  It’s your language, and those of us who have acquired very different connotations for terms (through the technical context they learned the language in, and through different connotations of the equivalent word in their native languages) will need some guidance.  So I’m very skeptical with throwing back the ball to the authors.

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:08:25 -0400

--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 23:56 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Do you think the General AD has enough support / authority to
> ask the gen-art reviewers to look for problematic language?
> If so, what should she point to as examples of what one might
> look for?  (The gen-art review team has people with a range of
> language backgrounds.)

Joel,

I'm going to answer a slightly different question.  I still
believe in the IETF principle that we operate bottom-up.  I have
come doubt recently that others do, especially as we see
policies of various sorts developed top-down and out of public
view and them exposed to the community for "consultation" or
approval.  I hope the changes are just an aberration due to the
unusual circumstances of the last six months or so and that our
processes will soon return to normal but wish I were more
confident about that.

So I think anyone in the community has the right to ask anyone,
including a particular review team or any or all WGs, to look
for problematic language... and to use whatever examples they
think are important in making that request.  Those participating
in that team or WG are, presumably, free to treat it as a
request -- one that they should consider but are not obligated
to accept and follow.

Now, to take that a step further and respond to a question you
definitely did not ask but that seems to be underlying some
small bits of this discussion (and a few others that are going
on): Does the General AD/ iETF Chair (or even the entire IESG)
have sufficient authority to insist that members of a review
team do a particular type of review --for language, for
conformity to the AD's views on some particular technical
matter, or something else -- or to pick/allow only those people
on the review team whose views are harmonious with theirs?  No,
I think that would be an abuse of power, a violation of our
principles of bottom-up decision making and doing things by
community consensus, and a serious danger.

 best,
   john

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:13:26 +0200

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> While I agree with that, I also think there might be some help out there that we might avail ourselves of ??? maybe not so much in other SDOs, but in professional organizations such as ACM.
> 
> I just know some of us (me included) can???t help with this, for the same reasons that Baudis gives for his choice of the term ???master??? for the main Git branch in 2005 [1].

> It???s your language, ...

Who is "your" ? Anybody who learned (american ?) english before the age of 6 ?

Btw.: I disagree. Any choices beyond ubiquitously recognized reasonably
good american english is probably an IETF community choice, and not
one of a subset defined by upbringing.

In reality, i think the policies and how to interpret them will simply be
 made by a combination of IETF leadership the minority that is able to
most cohesively voice their opinion. Aka: the usual IETF min/max way:
minimum effort by the people with privilege vs. maximum effort by
others to overturn those decisions.

Cheers
    Toerless

> and those of us who have acquired very different connotations for terms (through the technical context they learned the language in, and through different connotations of the equivalent word in their native languages) will need some guidance.  So I???m very skeptical with throwing back the ball to the authors.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
>

---

From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:16:35 -0400

I believe I agree with you in the sense that if we as a community do not 
have rough consensus that this kind of checking should be done, then ADs 
should not be asking reviewers to perform this kind of checking.  (I 
agree that individuals are always free to look for things.)

Personally, I think it would help us on multiple levels if we could, as 
a community, agree that this kind of checking should be done, and the 
issues should be raised.    Neither you nor I have the right to call the 
rough consensus for the IETF list / community.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:39:50 -0400

--On Sunday, August 9, 2020 13:16 -0400 Joel Halpern Direct
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe I agree with you in the sense that if we as a
> community do not have rough consensus that this kind of
> checking should be done, then ADs should not be asking
> reviewers to perform this kind of checking.  (I agree that
> individuals are always free to look for things.)

Agreed, with the observation that "please be on the lookout for
problems of this sort" is very different from "please watch out
for this particular list of words", especially if the latter
implies that words not on the list are inherently less important.

> Personally, I think it would help us on multiple levels if we
> could, as a community, agree that this kind of checking should
> be done, and the issues should be raised. 

In case it has not been clear, I agree.  I even agree with
comments that our doing so is long overdue.

However, if "this kind of checking" involves a list of "bad" or
"problematic" words (with or without a list of proposed
substitutions), then (i) I think it is unlikely that we can
build a stable list of that sort without favoring issues in some
cultures and ignoring issues in others (and I personally think
that would be bad) and (ii) Based, if nothing else, on the
discussions on this list, I don't see an acceptable level of
community consensus emerging any time soon (just my opinion, of
course).  So I prefer to trust the community --on a document by
document and usage by usage basis-- rather than an authoritative
list or committee.

I also prefer discussion and mutual education with authors and
within WGs to letting things get as far as cross-area review
teams -- to that point that, if problematic language reaches a
review team, IETF LC, or the IESG without, at least, significant
discussion about appropriateness, we should view it as enough of
a process failure to touch off a discussion among ADs and WG
Chairs about how such language can be flagged before reaching
those points in the future.

>   Neither you nor I
> have the right to call the rough consensus for the IETF list /
> community.

Of course.  Neither does the IESG or any single AD if they are
doing it on the basis of what they believe would be community
consensus if only the community were more enlightened.  And that
is precisely the boundary between "can the AD ask?" (the
question you asked) and "can the AD require or insist?" (the
question that, IMO, has been implied by many of the comments on
this list).

best,
   john

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:50:07 -0500

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
> I don’t mean to be pedantic but I also wonder what is going to happen
> once this ideology hits the chess, Go (the board game) and Othello
> communities. These communities are centered around “black” and “white”
> pieces that quite literally fight for “domination” and “control” of a
> board in a zero-sum game.

It's already happened, kind of.

A few weeks ago @agadmator was doing a live stream on youtube with chess
GM Hikaru Nakamura, and mid-way through he got his account suspended
from doing live streams for seven days.  It seems very likely (well,
@agadmator himself speculated this in a later video) that youtube's AI
heard things like "... and after b6 and takes takes, white is simply
better than black, ..." and it triggered the AI.

Nico
--

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:51:50 -0400

My reasoning on asking for a list of terms that are more often 
problematic, and likely candidate replacements for them, is to help the 
reviewers.
I had not even realized that grandfathered has unfortunate connotations 
and associations.
I do not expect non-native speakers of English, much less non-native 
speakers whose culture is very different from typical western European 
and American culture, to easily be able to recognize what the concern is.
I would not label such a list "must be avoided", as that is clearly too 
strong.  Particularly since almost all words have multiple uses.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:52:15 -0500

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 03:39:33PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> We are not talking about board games here.  Let’s stay focused and not
> go to reduction ad absurdum arguments. We are talking about the
> language used in IETF RFC’s.

Viktor's explanation of how "master" in contexts w/o "slave" can't be
offesnive needs to be addressed.  Really, asserting that "master secret"
is problematic is simply credibility-destroying.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:23:29 -0700

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 10:54 AM, Nico Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>  Really, asserting that "master secret"

Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another? 

Or is it just that there is one root key from which others are derived?

Ie why even bother defending a term that’s inaccurate to start?

Joe

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 12:49:30 -0700

> Ie why even bother defending a term that’s inaccurate to start?

   It's not inaccurate.

   In locksmithing a "master key" is one that opens all the doors while a
non-master key (which is not called a "slave key" by the way) only opens
the door it is milled for.

   Analogously, in cryptology a key can be a "master key" if possession of
it can be used to decrypt all the different traffic flows and a non-master
key (which is also not called a "slave key") only decrypts the flow it
was generated for. It's a great term.

   You can even get key hierarchies and the analogy holds. There could be
one key for all doors in the building and separate keys for all doors on
particular floors and then keys that are specific for particular doors.
Similarly you could have a key that could be used to decrypt all flows on
all cluster members, a separate key that could be used to decrypt all
flows on one cluster, and flow-specific keys that just decrypt one
individual flow on one cluster. It's a great term.

   Asserting that use of "master key" or "master secret" is a problem or
that it somehow "discourages participation in the IETF" (which is what has
been asserted for this new category of Problematic Words) is absurd!

   Dan.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:51:15 +0000

My memory is highly imperfect, and I did not go back to the archives and re-read this thread, but I don't recall those advocating for changes saying 'master secret,' for example, had to be changed. If I'm wrong about that, please post link to email discussion here.  I don't care about what other organizations are doing about that, so let's stay on-topic.

At any rate, I don't think terms like that need to be changed. If, however, it turns out that solitary use of the word master is exclusionary, then I have no problem with advocating for another word. We have many, and it costs nothing to be kind to potential collaborators.

Is my credibility with you restored now?  (Based on postings at, say, openssl-users, I doubt it. :)

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:56:02 -0700

> Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another? 

You are insisting that the only possible meaning of "master" is to control some[one|thing] else.  According to New Oxford American Dictionary Third edition, that's true when used it as a noun, but not when used as an adjective or a verb.

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:58:47 -0700

In physical locks, the master is the common key. It doesn’t control the other keys. 

In crypto, the master is the root or primary; others are child or derivatives. It doesn’t ‘control’ them either. 

Most crypto texts and docs need to explain that because it’s not understood from the terms alone. 

Joe 

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 12:50 PM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:01:40 -0700

Either the term helps understanding or it hinders it. If you need to invoke word origins or dictionaries, you’re already indicating the term by itself isn’t helpful. 

Joe

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 12:56 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:06:50 -0700

> Either the term helps understanding or it hinders it. If you need to invoke word origins or dictionaries, you’re already indicating the term by itself isn’t helpful. 

Using our feelings, not our brains.  Got it.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:22:48 -0700

On 8/9/20 12:51 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> If, however, it turns out that solitary use of the word master is exclusionary, then I have no problem with advocating for another word.

   What is the criteria you have for deciding whether a word is 
"exclusionary"?

   Dan.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:30:23 -0700

> Most crypto texts and docs need to explain that because it’s not understood from the terms alone.

   Who said anything about control? As has been pointed out to you already
on the list, there are different meanings to the word "master" and those
other meanings do not necessarily reflect a controlling relationship.

   I haven't seen any crypto texts spend any time explaining how the "master
key" doesn't really control the other keys. Seriously, zero out of hundreds
that I've read. It's a term of art.

   But then so is "master bathroom" and we have already seen the woke virus
infect the realty business.

   Dan.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:52:32 -0700

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 1:30 PM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> key" doesn't really control the other keys.

Right. But they do explain what a master key is and it’s relation to other keys. Ie. As a key from which other keys are derived. That meaning in nowhere inherent in the term “master”. 

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:54:45 -0700

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Using our feelings, not our brains.

No, use your brains. Not a separate uncited book that has to explain how to use your brains. 

Joe

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:06:45 +0300

> On 9 Aug 2020, at 22:56, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It is not true for nouns either. 

A master of science does not control science and a master of business administration doe not control business administration.

A school master (this is a British usage) is just a male teacher. He does not tend to control the school.

A chess master can beat me at chess, but he doesn’t control the game

And there are many more.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:25:41 -0400

Chess Master, as with Master of Arts, and Masterpiece, ... is a usage of 
"master" indicating one who posses a very high degree of skill.

While I do not know what others expect, I do not expect those usages to 
change.  Words have many meanings.

The usage of "master" meaning "the one in charge" has, over time, become 
contaminated with historical usage of a more specific kind of charge. 
While there are usage that may be reasonable to retain (outside of IETF 
purview), it seems to me that we should be looking at the places we use 
that term and see whether it is a good choice.
While "Master key" is outside of the IETF purview, it is actually a very 
odd idiom.  "Master secret", which is in our purview, is similarly an 
odd usage that does not do a good job of conveying our meaning.

We often end up with sloppy terms.  We often just live with them.  Even 
though it makes it harder for folks to understand our work.  In this 
case, we are being asked to look for better terms because the 
historically chosen terms have bagggage we distinctly did not intent.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:06:51 +1200

> I don’t mean to be pedantic but I also wonder what is going to happen once this ideology hits the chess, Go (the board game) and Othello communities. These communities are centered around “black” a…

Re. Chess - there have actually been complaints about the longstanding convention that white pieces make the first move.
	https://nz.news.yahoo.com/chess-centre-stunning-racism-debate-which-piece-moves-first-012917664.html

(This will, I hope, be my only posting on this thread.)

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:09:33 +0300

It doesn’t matter if you or anyone else thinks this is an odd idiom.  It is an idiom that has been used for centuries.  Its use in cryptography borrows from that use as does the word “key” itself. They both help understanding in that they reference common idioms. To replace them with made up names requires significant justification, where none has been given in this thread.

> On 10 Aug 2020, at 0:25, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Chess Master, as with Master of Arts, and Masterpiece, ... is a usage of "master" indicating one who posses a very high degree of skill.
> 
> While I do not know what others expect, I do not expect those usages to change.  Words have many meanings.
> 
> The usage of "master" meaning "the one in charge" has, over time, become contaminated with historical usage of a more specific kind of charge. While there are usage that may be reasonable to retain (outside of IETF purview), it seems to me that we should be looking at the places we use that term and see whether it is a good choice.
> While "Master key" is outside of the IETF purview, it is actually a very odd idiom.  "Master secret", which is in our purview, is similarly an odd usage that does not do a good job of conveying our meaning.
> 
> We often end up with sloppy terms.  We often just live with them.  Even though it makes it harder for folks to understand our work.  In this case, we are being asked to look for better terms because the historically chosen terms have bagggage we distinctly did not intent.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:37:37 -0700

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Angeits awaendednys*

Or don’t you still speak Old English?

Joe

*(meanings change)

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 23:01:03 +0000 (UTC)

"we're not talking about games nobody plays, we're talking about RFCs nobody reads!"

On Monday, August 10, 2020, 01:39, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:

#yiv3281696951 #yiv3281696951 -- _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv3281696951 #yiv3281696951 p.yiv3281696951MsoNormal, #yiv3281696951 li.yiv3281696951MsoNormal, #yiv3281696951 div.yiv3281696951MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3281696951 span.yiv3281696951EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv3281696951 .yiv3281696951MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv3281696951 div.yiv3281696951WordSection1 {}#yiv3281696951

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:19:52 -0400

Granted.  In the long run, all language changes.

However, I expect some uses to change sooner than others.  And I am not 
asking that all uses change now.  But I do think we should change some 
of the uses, in our space.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 15:03:02 -0700

Hi Toerless,
>one of a subset defined by upbringing.

Here are two sentences from a RFC:

   "For example, a poor person in a Third World country might keep the money
   in each mail message, regardless of whether it is spam".

   "Assuming cheap labor in a poor country can be obtained for about
    60 cents per hour, and assuming a Turing test of a 30-second duration,
    this is about 0.50 cents per test and thus 0.50 cents per message to
    send an IM spam."

The sentence is proper US English as it went through the publication 
process.  Anyone discussing those sentences at that point in time 
would be rebuked.  I took a look at the last-call mailing 
list.  There isn't much activity there except for the sponsored 
reviews.  I doubt that anyone would flag those sentences.

>others to overturn those decisions.

I see it a bit differently.  Sometimes, an opinion which might look 
convincing at first glance does not carry much weight if you (used in 
general terms) look at the facts.  The policies are usually based on 
input from less than 1% of the "community".  The breadth, in terms of 
participation, is quite narrow.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 23:34:42 +0000

"exclusionary"?

We haven't even come to consensus that *anything* can be.  This question is premature.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:48:46 -0700

> We haven't even come to consensus that *anything* can be.  This question is premature.

   Yet you are of the opinion that there are "exclusionary words" in RFCs
and we have to do something about it. Huh. OK, let me try another tact.

   What is it about a word that makes it "exclusionary" in your opinion?

   Dan.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 23:50:53 +0000

Sure.  I have an opinion; the IETF doesn't have consensus yet.

>       What is it about a word that makes it "exclusionary" in your opinion?

Not going to get into splitting hairs until we have consensus on the main question.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:02:04 -0500

> We haven't even come to consensus that *anything* can be.  This

You should have kept more of the context.  Dan was responding to your
"[i]f, however, it turns out that solitary use of the word master is
exclusionary, then...".  With that context present, Dan's is a fair
question.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:48:38 +0900

> Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another?

As most people in US do not mind to play TRPGs with dungeon/game
masters, who control the games, why do we have to bother?
> Or is it just that there is one root key from which others are derived?

"master secret" is used by many RFCs as terminology of TLS.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 14:53:59 +0900

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I do not expect non-native
> speakers of English, much less non-native speakers whose culture is
> very different from typical western European and American culture, to
> easily be able to recognize what the concern is.

I don't think native speakers of English in US share the common
recognition on what the concern is, not even within IETF.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 05:59:20 +0000 (UTC)

that's "dungeon playgroup chair", please.

On Monday, August 10, 2020, 15:49, Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]> wrote:

                            Masataka Ohta

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 23:26:10 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 10:51 AM 09-08-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>problematic, and likely candidate replacements for them, is to help 
>the reviewers.
>I had not even realized that grandfathered has unfortunate 
>connotations and associations.

There are some potential issues which I only caught on reading a 
review from Mr Doty.

>speakers whose culture is very different from typical western 
>European and American culture, to easily be able to recognize what 
>the concern is.
>I would not label such a list "must be avoided", as that is clearly 
>too strong.  Particularly since almost all words have multiple uses.

Please see the acronym mentioned in the slides at 
http://r.elandsys.com/r/72380  The person who raised the issue is 
probably from China.  I am acquainted with a few non-native speakers 
of English.  I have no doubt that they would understand the concern quickly.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:15:12 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 10/08/2020 00:03 S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 

Thanks for posting these examples: I find these two sentences much more problematic - and condescendingly discriminatory - than any use of "blacklist" or "master/slave". Actually, if I have to say which messages on this list disturbed me in the past in terms of "oppressive or exclusionary language", they were the ones suggesting that Singapore was an inappropriate place to meet because of some pretty normal customs check, or that you could never get acceptable healthcare in Thailand and possibly also in Spain. But I also assumed to be alone in that perception, and that if anyone was out of place in this context, it was me; perhaps I was just being too sensitive.

This is indeed part of the problem: these sensitivities vary a lot depending on each participant's culture and personal values, and what is a problem for me is fine with others. This is also why the problem cannot be solved with a list of proscribed words: the most offensive concepts can be written in very normal words. 

So, with all due respect for the "terminology" draft (which is IMHO fighting the wrong battle in the right war), I would prefer that the IETF community worked on a different draft which is not about proscribing words, but about improving inclusiveness and respect throughout the organization in general, and encouraging each author and each participant to take direct responsibility for that.

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

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:27:39 +0200

Thanks, S. Inline

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 03:03:02PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> process.  Anyone discussing those sentences at that point in time would be
> rebuked.  I took a look at the last-call mailing list.  There isn't much
> activity there except for the sponsored reviews.  I doubt that anyone would
> flag those sentences.

I was primarily thinking about the the fact that the whole community should
be able to claim to have a say in the policies, eve if they are non-native
english speaker.

I fully agree that the execution of the policies through just current
feedback to last-call mailing list would just result in randomn subsets of
the community getting involved, and primarily native english speakers.

Hence i think the policy should be to
ensure that there is a neutral, community selected set of language experts
that executive the community desired policy. I was recommending a nomcom
style election process for them as one possible way to achieve this. I
could perfectly think of pairs of native english speakers in the community
that would cancel each others extreme views of lanugage out, thinking it
could result in good compromise language....

> general terms) look at the facts.  The policies are usually based on input
> from less than 1% of the "community".  The breadth, in terms of

IMHO not much different from what i was saying. I just took the means of
gaming the process also into account. Aka: selective aggregation of
received opinions from the list, moving decisions to different forums than
email where the weight of pro/con would be known different, etc. pp.

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:54:41 +0200

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:15:12AM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Thanks for posting these examples: I find these two sentences much more problematic - and condescendingly discriminatory - than any use of "blacklist" or "master/slave".

Do you think there is better english to write these sentences without having
to change the intended meaning ? If not, how would you propose to resolve
text like this if brought up in the future ?

 Actually, if I have to say which messages on this list disturbed me in the past in terms of "oppressive or exclusionary language", they were the ones suggesting that Singapore was an inappropriate place to meet because of some pretty normal customs check, or that you could never get acceptable healthcare in Thailand and possibly also in Spain. But I also assumed to be alone in that perception, and that if anyone was out of place in this context, it was me; perhaps I was just being too sensitive.

If someone says something thats wrong, its typically easy to see if there was malice
by going through the discussion of correcting the wrong statements. The main problem
seems to be how to verbalize correct facts in a culturally appropriate way (no
connection to your examples intended). 

> This is indeed part of the problem: these sensitivities vary a lot depending on each participant's culture and personal values, and what is a problem for me is fine with others. This is also why th…

I can not remember a significant debate so far about that level of the
problem. From the little i experienced in the USA there seems to be
always the attempt to only replace words with supposedly less confrontational
euphemisms. This is cetainly why people are also hesitant of thinking
that such word changes will provide significant benefits.

> So, with all due respect for the "terminology" draft (which is IMHO fighting the wrong battle in the right war), I would prefer that the IETF community worked on a different draft which is not abou…

Goes back to my question on the text S brought forward and how it could be written
more respectfully.

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:09:01 +0000

I disagree, for reasons I gave above.

Subject: Akamai
From: Emma Allberry <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:31:19 +0000

Hi,

Good  Day,

I  am following up to confirm if you are interested in acquiring the Visitors/Registrants List.

Cloud  Expo Asia 

14  - 15 Oct 2020

Sands  Expo and Convention Centre, Singapore

Registrants  Counts: 6,500

Each  record of the list contains: Contact Name, Email Address, Company Name, URL/Website, Phone No, Title/Designation.

If  you are interested in acquiring the list, we can provide you the cost and additional details.

I  look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks  & Regards, 

Emma  Allberry - Business Analyst

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:41:54 -0700

> Sure.  I have an opinion; the IETF doesn't have consensus yet.

   I didn't ask whether we have consensus. Consensus will just determine
whether enough other people agree with you that there are "exclusionary
words" in RFCs. I asked you what is it about those words that you think
are "exclusionary" that makes them "exclusionary".

   In meetings we try to test consensus with a hum. So you're basically
refusing to hum until you find out how the humming went. Come on Rich.
Suddenly you're so shy?

   Dan.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:11:04 +0000

Once we agree on the concept that some words are exclusionary, we can get into the nitty-gritty of figuring out which words and phrases are problematic.

No I'm not.  I have already said, multiple times, that I think there is problematic language and that we should address it. I do not want to get into arguing about which specific words until we settle that point because I feel it will distract from the main point.  Bike-shedding if you will.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:33:50 +0200

> The IETF really needs to address this problem itself.

I'm pretty sure RFC editor team [1] count as "international experts on technical
language" by virtue of having churned out 1000s of our glorious product over
the years.

Has anyone thought to ask them for input?

	Cheers Leif

[1] along with the former RSE btw

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:23:34 -0700

Hi Toerless,
>could result in good compromise language....

On reading your reply I was reminded of a recommendation (made 
several years ago) to get more non-native English-speaking people in 
one of the review teams.  It was probably not implemented for unknown 
reasons.  The language experts are actually the people within the RFC 
Editor Function (it is not the RSE who does that work).

In theory, the whole community has a say in policies.  That is not 
how it worked in practice.  I don't know whether the idea which you 
proposed would work as I am not involved in execution.

>IMHO not much different from what i was saying. I just took the means of

Yes.

>email where the weight of pro/con would be known different, etc. pp.

It is up to the IESG to decide about the above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:24:13 +0200

> be able to claim to have a say in the policies, eve if they are non-native

Obviously!

But the way you are saying this also indicates that you are confused about this effort.

This is not the IETF reinventing language.
This is the IETF reacting to society reinventing language.

To a large extent, this is a diagnostic, not a synthetic effort.

Whether someone is a "native speaker" does not predict that they will make a useful contribution to this (review this thread if you don’t follow).  Not being a “native speaker” does make it less likely that one is immersed enough to contribute, exceptions notwithstanding.

The fact that my personal knee-jerk reaction to some of the proposals would be that they are ridiculous (or just betraying a lack of education) just shows that I am not immersed enough in the society that is making these changes.  The proposals were brought to the IETF by serious people, out of serious concerns.  We are not in the driver seat, and we shouldn’t act like we are.  In the old adage, “lead, follow, or get out of the way”, I’d say this is a strong “follow” for the IETF.  I’ll “get out of the way” now.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:28:39 +0900

> This is the IETF reacting to society reinventing language.

While some insist that language may evolve in time, it does
not mean they can change the language at will except for very
narrow society (IETF is a lot wider than it) around them.

So far, there are evidences English language accepted by most
US people has not changed in a way insisted by some.

Feel free to give some examples as evidences of changes or
insist that we should not talk about specific examples.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:04:39 +0200

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 04:23:34PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> On reading your reply I was reminded of a recommendation (made several years
> ago) to get more non-native English-speaking people in one of the review
> teams.  It was probably not implemented for unknown reasons.  The language
> experts are actually the people within the RFC Editor Function (it is not
> the RSE who does that work).

I would think that a good editor will try to find all the good arguments
why a particular choice of language is not his/her owns but drawn from
some good practice with known references. In this case we are talking about,
they would either find such from (1) other communities, (2) guidelines
established by ITEF community or (3) claim that they can't do anything because
they could not find enough guidance.

I was suggesting processes for (2) (nomcom style community rule establishment).
I am mostly worried about the occurance of some extreme forms of (1) at this
point, but then again, i am paranoid.

> In theory, the whole community has a say in policies.  That is not how it
> worked in practice.  I don't know whether the idea which you proposed would
> work as I am not involved in execution.

Yes, but i also think all of this can develop over time. First round IMHO
it would be nice to have a place where to collect language choice taken
in the process of the RFCs from now on. Without attempting to have a more
formalized process.

> It is up to the IESG to decide about the above.

Indeed.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:28:56 +0200

> But the way you are saying this also indicates that you are confused about this effort.

"confused" ?  Where again should i go to complain about unfriendly, dismissive 
"oppressive" ? language on IETF mailing lists ?

;-))

> To a large extent, this is a diagnostic, not a synthetic effort.

I do not see such a clear separation. What you call "society" started
as IMHO a group of activists that is promoting a particulary type of
language change, and this group is getting into communities like the IETF to
promote community members to join their cause. So part of IETF community
becomes/became "part of that society" to drive that change.

> Whether someone is a "native speaker" does not predict that they will make a useful contribution to this (review this thread if you don???t follow).  Not being a ???native speaker??? does make it less likely that one is immersed enough to contribute, exceptions notwithstanding.

Thanks for restating. First time around i was reading your position differently. 

> The fact that my personal knee-jerk reaction to some of the proposals would be that they are ridiculous (or just betraying a lack of education) just shows that I am not immersed enough in the society that is making these changes.

"promoting/proposing these changes" ?

> The proposals were brought to the IETF by serious people, out of serious concerns.

Serious concerns by serious people do not guarantee that their means
are appropriate.

"We are not in the driver seat, and we shouldn???t act like we are."

I don't think the situation is that #000000 and #FFFFFF.
(Is that an IETF appropriate replacement for "black & white" ?)

>  In the old adage, ???lead, follow, or get out of the way???, I???d say this is a strong ???follow??? for the IETF.  I???ll ???get out of the way??? now.

Remember that we are not talkin about something that has happened,
but something being promoted to find supporters. 

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:01:09 +0000

This is not correct.  Looking at just the tech industry here is a partial list of companies that are doing something:
	W3C
	Twitter (https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-engineers-new-list-coding-terms-more-inclusive-1515131)
	Android, GitHub, Splunk, UK National Security Cyber Center (https://thenewstack.io/words-matter-finally-tech-looks-at-removing-exclusionary-language/)
	RedHat (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qj4jqb/red-hat-audit-to-eradicate-problematic-language-in-its-code)
	IBM (https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/2DZELQ4O etc)
	Google (https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation)

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:47:28 -0400

It occurs to me to note that I have seen practically nothing else posted 
to the ietf list, in at least a month.

Has discussion of language completely crowded out discussions related to 
getting real work done?

I ask, because I note that such discussions have crowded out substantive 
issues on more than a few lists - including a number that I host - in 
some cases leading to fracturing of communities, and the death of projects.

It increasingly strikes me that discussions of politically correct 
language are a virus, destroying the ability of online (and possibly 
more than online) communities to work together.  One might almost wonder 
if there's a conspiracy at work - divide and conquer, leaving the world 
in the hands of whichever demagogues & talking heads are most effective 
at inflaming mobs.  (Or the hand of God rerunning the Tower of Babel 
scenario.)

It also seems to me, that our community - one that has provided the 
infrastructure that now ties the world together, once dedicated to 
interconnection, interoperability, resource sharing, and broad-based 
collaboration - is now falling victim to pressures that lead us back to 
tribalism, walled gardens, and echo chambers.

Call me a little sensitive at the moment - I just had to shut down a 
Facebook forum, as a choice between a commitment to free speech being 
abused by a very small number of self-righteous dogmatists polluting the 
"airwaves" to the extent that no useful discussion was possible (and 
driving me to emotional states & online behavior that I normally find 
repulsive - when I start enjoying poking the bear, to see it dance, I 
know things have gotten way out of hand).

There has to be a better way to engage with each other - online & off.  
Starting, perhaps, by applying Postel's law to our verbal & written 
behavior?

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:50:54 +0900

Salz, Rich wrote:

> This is not correct.  Looking at just the tech industry here is a
> partial list of companies that are doing something:
That such black companies are trying to dictate people in US can not be
any evidence.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:21:14 +0000

any evidence.

This is wrong.

They are not trying to dictate to others, they are making changes *to themselves* because they believe it is a good thing to do. So, for what some of us would like the IETF to do, it is *exactly* evidence that some of our industry is moving this way.