[00:33:17] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[01:56:12] Pete Resnick joins the room
[02:49:17] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[02:55:14] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[10:47:03] francesca joins the room
[10:48:24] <francesca> Minutes and Bluesheet: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch?both
[10:53:57] Pete Resnick joins the room
[10:59:08] Barry Leiba joins the room
[11:02:30] <Pete Resnick> https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch?both
[11:02:31] brong joins the room
[11:02:39] dhruvdhody joins the room
[11:03:30] <brong> Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie, oy oy oy
[11:03:57] <brong> 9pm for me
[11:04:26] <brong> even later for Jay!
[11:05:04] Mirja joins the room
[11:07:53] andrew_campling joins the room
[11:12:34] csperkins joins the room
[11:12:37] <francesca> https://github.com/ietf/terminology
[11:20:10] Jay Daley joins the room
[11:24:35] <andrew_campling> Focus on "good" terminology where possible, agree to keep it advisory only
[11:25:06] <francesca> ack Andrew
[11:26:31] <andrew_campling> +1 to RFC, along the lines of 8890 as mentioned earlier
[11:33:02] Klensin joins the room
[11:33:18] <andrew_campling> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890
[11:35:22] rwilton joins the room
[11:38:08] <Mirja> rfc8890 is an IAB document without IETF consensus
[11:38:40] <Klensin> @Andrew: appropriate, ridiculous, or offensive to some cultures.
[11:41:57] <andrew_campling> I agree with Bron and others that there isn't a giant problem but, given the focus that the issue gained on the IETF list, doing nothing would be difficult too.  Hence an informational RFC covering broad principles would seem like a good way forward.
[11:42:25] <brong> informational RFC plus create a group for maintaining a list?
[11:43:08] <andrew_campling> That seems reasonable, gives a "home" for any future issues etc
[11:48:35] <Klensin> I am _definitely_  not suggesting  "do nothing" or "drop".   I am suggesting that we deal with actual (not theoretical) issues of inappropriate language on a document by document basis.  The
[11:50:37] <andrew_campling> +1 to Keith's comment on the chat "I wouldn't describe it as having offended people "take on the responsibility", but I do think that having people who aren't in the position of being offended act as proxies for those who supposedly are offended, is a recipe for disaster."
[11:50:54] <Klensin> suggestion of the IETF list is precisely because everyone recognizes it would not be productive.  But another list is inherently discriminatory against those who decide to devote limited IETF time to substantive technical work.  And, no, I wasn't suggesting that those who are marginalized should be the [only] ones to defend themselves either.
[11:52:44] DD joins the room
[11:55:17] <andrew_campling> An informational RFC could of course helpfully look beyond a focus on terminology and give a clear statement that the IETF is eager to involve as diverse a community of participants as possible for all types of work
[11:55:29] <brong> I'm happy to work on the wording for that
[11:55:37] <Klensin> @Victor: yes,  And Pete may recall that I pointed out another example in a note to him.
[11:57:12] <Klensin> @Pete, having made one of those comments, It isn't "not credible" as much as it is at risk of being presumptuous and demeaning to those who are supposedly being protected.
[11:59:55] <csperkins> +1 to Rich
[12:02:52] <andrew_campling> To Robert's point about an advisory list, okay but it needs to avoid being US-centric as per the "Knodel" draft
[12:09:27] <Klensin> @Victor: agree, but, like Pete, I've talked with people (including but not limited to women) who have dropped out or declined to participate because they consider the environment toxic... in a few cases, because of the character and tone of the terminology discussion.
[12:14:59] <andrew_campling> On the need for references, I'd prefer having a well drafted document over one that is well referenced but poorly written.  
[12:15:52] <Klensin> @Bron: I'm nodding because, if we don't have success criteria and consensus on them, we either end up continuing to go around in circles (I was going to use a different metaphor involving "tails", but it is considered offensive toi some groups) or  we end up with a committee whose primary focus is not high quality technical work but elegance of language.
[12:17:25] <Klensin> And, if we are concerned about language discouraging participation and reducing diversity, then we need to push back on informal language in postings to mailiing lists, not just, e.g., documents intended to evolve into RFCs.
[12:19:23] Mirja leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[12:21:54] Mirja joins the room
[12:22:40] <Klensin> +1 to Victor (still concerned about how we get there)
[12:23:00] <Mirja> Just as a minor note this is not only about people participating actively in the IETF but also about people reading RFCs
[12:25:52] <brong> Mirja: definitely agree
[12:27:14] <andrew_campling> It would be interesting to hear from those people on the call that havent actively particiated yet, especially at the mic, even if it's to log why such participation is not easy  
[12:28:10] <Klensin> Focusing on inclusiveness requires that we clean up our thinking, not just the vocabulary we or others use in public.  Sometimes the discussions about terminology (as distinct from principles) turn out to be as much of a problem as the terminology itself.   Disclaimer: While obviously not in an IETF or Internet context, the first time I got involved in a discussoin about choices of langauge and their effects --frightenly (to me) similar to this one-- was in 1952.
[12:28:58] <andrew_campling> @John - sad to hear that little progress has been made in ~70 years!
[12:29:47] <brong> Klensin: ouch - thanks for sharing that.  That gives us a really clear idea that this problem will never go away.  I guess we're shoveling mud here
[12:30:04] <Klensin> @Kyle: intent to ignite flame wars is a good example of why I'm concerned about how we get from here (wherever that is) to there.
[12:30:14] <Klensin> ... especially if IETF consensus is needed.
[12:30:21] <brong> there will always be people who love watching things burn :(
[12:32:48] <Mirja> Not sure if we have all the right people in the room to actually find a workable conclusion
[12:33:31] <Klensin> @Pete: I'm fine with that you should repeat your earlier comment about chairs, choice of ADs (makes a difference), mailing list chairs/moderators/police, ....
[12:37:42] Jay Daley leaves the room
[12:39:57] <Klensin> I thnk I was agreeing to the next version of Bron's document, presumably reflecting this and the prior interim meeting discussions (not the current one as-is)
[12:40:28] <Klensin> +1000 to Mirja
[12:51:30] <Klensin> @Andrew:  +1 (having said what you are saying now on the IETF list and being attacked for it)
[12:57:23] <Klensin> @Bron: And that is much of the reason I'd like to encourage individual discussion focused on particular langiage in particular documents and education in that context.    Much higher odds, at least in my experience, than broad statements of principle although I think the latter can help too.
[12:57:49] <Klensin> "odds of changing attitudes and behavior"
[13:05:25] dhruvdhody leaves the room
[13:05:52] rwilton leaves the room
[13:23:47] brong leaves the room
[13:25:43] Mirja leaves the room
[13:35:50] DD leaves the room
[13:59:41] francesca leaves the room
[14:01:00] Mirja joins the room
[14:01:27] andrew_campling leaves the room
[14:56:19] Mirja leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[14:57:50] Mirja joins the room
[15:14:12] Mirja leaves the room
[18:22:02] mcr joins the room