Subject: Re: [Terminology] [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:03:36 -0700

> The industry phrase is "diversity, equity and inclusion" and I think
 > worth going with this standard notation.

   What do you mean by those words? "equity" sounds great and who could
possibly be against it but when it is put into practice we end up with
things like the Virginia Department of Education getting rid of advanced
placement math classes in the name of "equity" [1]. Preventing people
from advancing will certainly create a more equitable result-- everybody
is mediocre!-- but it does nothing for people who are struggling with
math. Harrison Bergeron [2] was meant as a warning, not a how-to guide.

   So what about the IETF? What does "equity" look like in the IETF to
someone who thinks Orwell is "a fun read"?

   Dan.

[1] 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/virginia-drop-advanced-math-courses-before-11th-grade-equity
[2] http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

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

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:25:01 +1000

Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite!

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

> On 28 Apr 2021, at 16:03, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/virginia-drop-advanced-math-courses-before-11th-grade-equity
> Terminology mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:02:34 +1200

> On 28/04/2021, at 6:03 PM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

I’m struggling to understand how it’s possible to suggest certain words are problematic, and therefore imply they should be avoided, while attacking the principle of avoiding problematic words.  Perhaps I’m mistaken but you appear to agree with the principle that specific words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups and that they should be avoided as a result.  Can we declare consensus on that principle?

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:47:59 +1000

> I’m struggling to understand how it’s possible to suggest certain words are problematic, and therefore imply they should be avoided, while attacking the principle of avoiding problematic words.  Pe…

And now it's my turn to say something you said to me the other day Jay :)  (and for those who didn't see that thread, Jay called me out on a pretty bad non-sequitur in my response to a thread where my comments weren't really on topic).

You said: "I don’t see how you got here."

So I ask - how do you get from:

 * equity proposals have a tendency to lead to "tall poppies must be cut down to the height of all the other poppies" (with citation) - and hence questioning the use of equity as a term that the IETF is striving for.
to:

 * Can we declare consensus on the principle that specific words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups?

I don't see Dan questioning consensus on specific words having uncomfortable meanings here - unless you believe that "diversity, equity, inclusion" is synonymous with "specific words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups".

Cheers,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 22:19:48 +1200

> On 28/04/2021, at 9:48 PM, Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I’m sorry but you’ve misstated what I said so much that I think the best way to explain it is to recommend that you re-read my message. 

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

> equity proposals have a tendency to lead to "tall poppies must be cut down to the height of all the other poppies" (with citation) - and hence questioning the use of equity as a term that the IETF is striving for.
> to:
> 
> Can we declare consensus on the principle that specific words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups?
>

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:16:22 +1000

Jay,

like Bron, I have no idea what your message intended, even after re-reading it.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

> On 28 Apr 2021, at 20:20, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:54:45 -0700

On 4/28/21 12:02 AM, Jay Daley wrote:
> I’m struggling to understand how it’s possible to suggest certain 
> words are problematic, and therefore imply they should be avoided, 
> while attacking the principle of avoiding problematic words.

   Attacking? Wow Jay! Talk about words to avoid. You use a verb that
implies violence. We're having a discussion here, there's no violence.
Take a few deep breaths before you compose your next post.

>  Perhaps I’m mistaken but you appear to agree with the principle that 
> specific words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups and 
> that they should be avoided as a result.

   Words have meanings. People can have their own private meaning and they
will use those words in a way to mollify opposition while retaining a
hidden agenda. I gave a perfect example. No one is against "equity" in
theory. Everyone is treated the same, right? Who could be against that?
Well, in practice, it's not treating people the same, it's equity in
outcome. So those who have worked hard to advance are held back in
order to ensure the same result as those who haven't. And if those who
were proposing this policy had just said that and not obscured their
intent with these loaded words they'd have been opposed.

   I have seen the same behavior with other words in the list. In the
name of "inclusion" we see the implementation of cancel culture.

   So I'm asking a legitimate question. In the IETF what do these words
mean? How is "equity" in the IETF achieved? What does it mean to have
"equity"? What does "inclusion" mean for the IETF and what will be done
in order to achieve that goal?

   These are loaded words. I'm trying to get some clarification on
what the users of these words mean.

> Can we declare consensus on that principle?

   I think such a declaration would be erroneous.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:38:13 +0200 (CEST)

>     Il 28/04/2021 18:54 Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
I can't speak for the proponents (and, in general, I largely agree with Viktor's assessment, though I think that changing those few words provides some benefits and we should just do it and get back to work). But on this specific point, it is generally understood, and not controversial at all, that today "inclusion" means "excluding people who refuse inclusion". This is known as Popper's "paradox of tolerance" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance ) and while the U.S. tradition on this has been different until recently, in Europe this is well understood and applied since the end of World War II.

Unfortunately, this is also exactly what Orwell defined as part of his "newspeak" - using a word to mean its contrary - so it is also normal for people to claim that these efforts are Orwellian in nature; that is not new. Both are legitimate and well established opinions.

Honestly, it looks to me that the IETF is now "discovering hot water", as we say in Italy, i.e. reinventing the wheel of free speech arguments that have been going on for decades and should be given for granted. The discussion should rather be on whether changing those words has a net inclusion result >= 0 or <= 0.

-- vb.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:19:45 -0400

On 4/28/21 3:02 AM, Jay Daley wrote:

(In response to Dan, I believe)

> while attacking the principle of avoiding problematic words.  Perhaps 
> I’m mistaken but you appear to agree with the principle that specific 
> words have uncomfortable meanings for specific groups and that they 
> should be avoided as a result.

I can't speak for Dan, but I wonder if the apparent contradiction is due 
to differing ideas about rigidity and specificity.

There are a few words that are better avoided under the vast majority of 
circumstances.   There are other words that are problematic in certain 
contexts, but perhaps not problematic in others.

Just to pick an often debated example, the word "master" may be 
problematic for some if it's being used to express a control 
relationship (especially in relation to "slave"), but not problematic at 
all if used to indicate its traditional English meaning of "teacher" or 
some degree of expertise (e.g. "master craftsperson").

As for "uncomfortable meanings for specific groups", I wonder how large, 
or significant, or perhaps marginalized, a group needs to be to be worth 
forbidding or discouraging the use of a word.   Or under what situations 
causing such discomfort is considered responsible or even laudable, 
versus situations in which causing discomfort is seen as irresponsible 
or reprehensible.

I have found in the past that some people who insist on policing others' 
language are quite willing to cause distress among people who 
respectfully see things from a different point-of-view, even to the 
point of subjecting them to vituperative public criticism and working 
publicly and privately to malign their reputations, with no apparent 
concern for either the targeted individuals' discomfort or the potential 
reasonableness of the targeted individuals' points of view.

I also wonder why there seems to be a concern for members of specific 
groups who might be uncomfortable, but less so for individuals who are 
so not easily categorized, as if the only thing that matters about an 
individual is the way people use superficial characteristics to 
pigeonhole them.

So while I don't think any of us should be trying to make any RFC 
readers uncomfortable, I wonder about the reasonableness of a standard 
of "must/should not make members of specific groups uncomfortable".

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:34:40 -0400

Maybe because of my different background (which did include learning 
networking by reading RFCs, though), I would think IETF usual practices 
could eliminate a lot of uncertainty and maybe emotional involvement.  
Below are some paragraphs in which I try to show what I mean.

from the draft charter, v.07:
"The TERM working group is therefore chartered to produce an 
Informational RFC
containing guidance to IETF participants on the use of effective 
terminology
that also minimizes exclusionary effects. ...
... guidance to IETF participants on the use of effective 
terminology....
The RFC will express general principles for assessing when language is 
effective. ...
The output of this WG will provide guidance to IETF participants and 
will not
restrict the type or content of contributions that can be made to the 
IETF
standards process."

Looking at the situation described in ITEF's draft charter from the 
point of view of Information Theory, and simplifying WLOG to 1-way 
communication between IETF as Sender and users of RFCs as Receivers, the 
issue at hand seems to be at its base a mismatch between Sender 
encodings and Receiver encodings, whereas a foundational idea in Info 
Theory is that Sender and Receiver must share the same encodings.  RFCs 
are encoded using words in bare plain text, but some users are reporting 
that some words in RFCs messages introduce imprecisions which limit 
successful communication.  There are meaning tokens which have become so 
loaded with extra, non-computing meaning that for some users they are 
equivocal, and what is encoded in a word may not be the same for all 
participants.  From this channel efficiency viewpoint, the requests for 
changes seems like just another instance of usual IETF work to improve 
clarity of language in a multi-lingual world.

Focusing on just such cases of submitted complaints, it seems 
straightforward to get good data by assembling fully documented 
suggested improvements--ie some standard format list of them--from all 
interested parties, then review and decide what encoding tokens are to 
be rectified.  Which is what IETF is starting on, as far as I can see. 
The banality and democracy of the list format should even help maintain 
objectivity.  And the content of any archive about this issue would 
offer the ease of access of the list form.

The assignment emphasized by IETF, of improving effectiveness of 
language and terminology, is a different matter.  Previous posters have 
noted that may not be feasible, and I with a strong background in the 
fields which mashed together give sociolinguistics, would agree.  The 
problem is that "principles for assessing when language is effective" 
are elusive.

"Effective" is tricky to define in operational terms, and may end up 
seeming to be vacuous or full of special cases.  It is not like eg the 
definition of the effectiveness of an attempt to make a sports "goal".  
That can be based on 100% sampling of attempts; the achieving of a goal, 
and the responsibility for achieving it, is obvious to viewers; and 
there are no carry-over effects like there are in language use, ie an 
attempt to achieve one goal instance now is not affected by earlier 
attempt instances.

However, I can suggest the use of a tool which has a long history of 
acceptance as contributing to effective language use, the famous (in 
literary circles) Strunk & White, _The Elements of Style_, a small, 
efficient book.  My copy at hand is 2000, 4th Edition.  So the 
expression in a RFC of "general principles for assessing when language 
is effective" would consist in saying that writings should cohere with 
the rules in Strunk & White.  If they cohere, they can be treated as 
ceteris paribus assumed to be effective.

And internally, the effectiveness of what will be the TERM RFC, might be 
measured crudely with usual frequency and density measures.  Change over 
time of number of complaints of this sort, proportions over time of 
these complaints compared to all complaints for all RFCs, etc.  But 
these are far from direct measures of language in general.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 09:46:19 +1200

Hi,
On 30-Apr-21 09:34, [email-masked] wrote:
...
> efficient book.  

The style guide observes that "the RFC Editor generally follows these
accepted rules as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS)."
I know that they considered Strunk & White but eventually settled
on CMOS. Some of us might prefer Fowler.

I don't know where CMOS stands on exclusionary language.

   Brian

---

From: "Jim Fenton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:38:43 -0700

> I don't know where CMOS stands on exclusionary language.

The NIST document mentioned earlier, in Section 4.3 discusses guidance 
in the Chicago Manual of Style Sections 5.251-5.260. NIST notes that 
CMOS does not endorse use of the singular “they”, and note that as a 
conflict with their guidance. I haven’t read the CMOS guidance yet, 
but I gather that they are otherwise aligned.

-Jim

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:41:42 -0700

On 4/29/21 3:38 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> conflict with their guidance.

   Good! English has a perfectly valid gender-neutral 3rd person 
singular: it.

   Dan.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:56:44 -0700

On 4/29/2021 3:41 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:

>> The NIST document mentioned earlier, in Section 4.3 discusses 
>> guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style Sections 5.251-5.260. NIST 
>> notes that CMOS does not endorse use of the singular “they”, and note 
>> that as a conflict with their guidance.
>

Alternately, if people don't want to use "they" as a singular pronoun 
and also don't want to designate persons as objects, they can always 
rearrange their phrase and use the plural tense. If that's the sole 
point of contention, it is rather easily solved...

-- Christian Huitema