Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] revised

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:10:35 -0400

Hi,

On 2/23/21 10:12 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>   There seems to be a desire to have the group focus
>      (first/primarily?) on race as the single axis in which to discuss diversity
>      and inclusiveness, e.g. [1]-- and that would be very divisive and
>      destructive.
>
>
> Why do you think it would be destructive, as opposed to a first step because some think it is easier to handle?
>
Slight redireciton, which might change the way this conversation plays out:

This work hasn't been chartered to focus on race; we're focussing on 
racism. Racism is systemic social oppression, so it's within an 
institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these larger social ills 
as they play out within its community, eg as through initiatives like 
using inclusive language.

We're not talking about individuals' racial identities.

-Mallory

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

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:35:43 -0700

Howdy,

On 3/31/21 6:10 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>> Why do you think it would be destructive, as opposed to a first step 
>> because some think it is easier to handle?
>>
> institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these larger social 
> ills as they play out within its community, eg as through initiatives 
> like using inclusive language.

   Uhm...no. Defining racism as "systemic social oppression" means that 
certain groups
(those who do not wield systemic power) cannot commit racism. And that's 
just wrong.
Racism is actually the act of prejudice and antagonism against people on 
the basis
of their race. As the recent rash of anti-Asian violence in the USA 
committed by African-
Americans has shown, racism is not exclusive and can be practiced by 
anyone, regardless
of any power dynamic or "systemic" capability.

   And while this is, indeed, a social ill it is not up to a technical 
standards body like the IETF
to ameliorate it. We have protocols to finish!

   If you see racism at the IETF, call it out and see it gets dealt 
with. Nota bene: disparate impact
is not evidence of racism.

> We're not talking about individuals' racial identities.

    You're talking about a group's racial identity. You treat 
individuals as members of a
group. I still maintain that is divisive and destructive and I don't 
think it's a good path
for anyone to go down, certainly not us.

   Dan.

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

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:17:14 -0400

On 3/31/21 9:35 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>   Uhm...no. Defining racism as "systemic social oppression" means 
> that certain groups
> (those who do not wield systemic power) cannot commit racism.

It's not my definition.

We're not concerned with who is doing the committing.

> Racism is actually the act of prejudice and antagonism against people 
> on the basis
> of their race.

That's discrimination and hate crimes, et al. Those are prohibited in 
the IETF by BCP 54.

There are relationships between all of these concepts, but it's 
important to be clear where TERM is focussed.

I said:

> it's within an institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these 
> larger social ills as they play out within its community, eg as 
> through initiatives like using inclusive language

> for anyone to go down, certainly not us.

Research and academic scholarship has shown that for diversity, equity 
and inclusion efforts to be effective that concrete actions have to be 
taken, beyond just a vague commitment to do better. That just makes us 
feel better temporarily without actually changing anything. The IETF is 
doing concrete things, and it's really great to see. One of the 
important elements is to _elevate_ identity because in an unequal and 
exclusive community, bias is _hidden_ identity discrimination.

No doubt this is divisive, though IME it's uniquely acute in the IETF. 
It might also be temporarily destructive (anti-racism is about 
destroying racism, after all). However, a strong and goal-oriented 
(protocols!) community like the IETF will certainly survive TERM for the 
better.

-Mallory

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:52:17 -0400

It is not clear why the focus here has avoided other fundamental rights 
related to discriminatory behavior, e.g., xenophobism, antisemitism, 
sexual orientation.  A rather full enumeration can be found at 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rutkowski-hrpc-hraas-00

It is relevant because the IETF and its participants are subject to 
legal requirements relating to proactive (rather than passive) 
mitigation of discriminatory, along with transparency and 
anticompetitive behaviors.

--tony r

On 31-Mar-21 10:17 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>>>> Why do you think it would be destructive, as opposed to a first 
>>>> step because some think it is easier to handle?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ills as they play out within its community, eg as through 
>>> initiatives like using inclusive language.
>>
> feel better temporarily without actually changing anything. The IETF 
> is doing concrete things, and it's really great to see. One of the 
> (protocols!) community like the IETF will certainly survive TERM for 
> the better.
>
> -Mallory
>

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:02:53 -0400

Agree that nothing whatsoever should prevent IETF from addressing these 
issues urgently,

-Mallory

On 3/31/21 10:52 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> It is not clear why the focus here has avoided other fundamental 
> rights related to discriminatory behavior, e.g., xenophobism, 
> antisemitism, sexual orientation.  A rather full enumeration can be 
> found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rutkowski-hrpc-hraas-00
>
>>>> This work hasn't been chartered to focus on race; we're focussing 
>>>> on racism. Racism is systemic social oppression, so it's within an 
>>> Racism is actually the act of prejudice and antagonism against 
>>> people on the basis
>>> of their race.
>>
>>>   And while this is, indeed, a social ill it is not up to a 
>>> technical standards body like the IETF
>> Research and academic scholarship has shown that for diversity, 
>> equity and inclusion efforts to be effective that concrete actions 
>> have to be taken, beyond just a vague commitment to do better. That 
>> just makes us feel better temporarily without actually changing 
>> anything. The IETF is doing concrete things, and it's really great to 
>> see. One of the important elements is to _elevate_ identity because 
>> in an unequal and exclusive community, bias is _hidden_ identity 
>> discrimination.
>>
>> No doubt this is divisive, though IME it's uniquely acute in the 
>> IETF. It might also be temporarily destructive (anti-racism is about

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:21:40 -0500

[Bcc'ing gendispatch; Cc'ing terminology]

Folks, please move this discussion over to the terminology list.

pr

On 31 Mar 2021, at 10:02, Mallory Knodel wrote:

> Agree that nothing whatsoever should prevent IETF from addressing 
> these issues urgently,
>
> -Mallory
>
>>>>> institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these larger 
>>>>> social ills as they play out within its community, eg as through 
>>> That's discrimination and hate crimes, et al. Those are prohibited 
>>> in the IETF by BCP 54.
>>>
>>>> it's within an institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate 
>>>> these larger social ills as they play out within its community, eg 
>>>> as through initiatives like using inclusive language
>>>
>>>> group. I still maintain that is divisive and destructive and I 
>>>> don't think it's a good path
>>> anything. The IETF is doing concrete things, and it's really great 
>>> to see. One of the important elements is to _elevate_ identity 
>>> because in an unequal and exclusive community, bias is _hidden_ 
>>> identity discrimination.
>>>

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:49:28 -0700

>> (those who do not wield systemic power) cannot commit racism.

   If it's not your definition then why did you say, "Racism is systemic 
social oppression"?

   Seems it most definitely IS your definition.

> We're not concerned with who is doing the committing.

   You're playing a semantic game. You're concerned with "what" is doing
the committing and that "what" is composed of people who have a certain
racial makeup.

> That's discrimination and hate crimes, et al. Those are prohibited in 

   Actually no. It's not. It's EXACTLY what comes up when you google 
"definition of racism",
it's the common, accepted definition of the term.

> exclusive community, bias is _hidden_ identity discrimination.

    Define "effective" as it relates to the core function of the IETF. 
What permanent
change do you wish to see?

   And I would love to see the scholarship you refer to, please send 
pointers (but if
it's behind a pay wall don't bother).

   In your hypothetical community A may cause B, but everywhere else an 
observed B
does not mean A.

> No doubt this is divisive, though IME it's uniquely acute in the IETF. 

   Really? So please do call out the racism and bias of the IETF, 
explicitly. Let me
remind you again that disparate impact is not evidence of racism and it 
is a fallacy
(specifically, the residual fallacy [1]) to claim otherwise. So, 
excluding disparate
impact, where is this racism and bias you speak of?

> (protocols!) community like the IETF will certainly survive TERM for 

   You pit one group against another. That's destructive and it ain't 
temporary. The
whole "anti-racism" agenda is Maoist struggle sessions. it's the 
cultural revolution
all over again, you just haven't brought out the dunce cap (yet). 
Nothing good came
out of that nonsense and nothing good will come if we try it again.

   Dan.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LjWMITwXs

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:11:23 -0500

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:49:28AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> Let me remind you again that disparate impact is not evidence of
> racism and it is a fallacy (specifically, the residual fallacy [1]) to
> claim otherwise. So, excluding disparate impact, where is this racism
> and bias you speak of?

The IETF's volunteer nature, with no gatekeepers, means that the IETF
can neither be the cause of nor the solution to lack of diversity of any
kind.  Though perhaps in order for the IETF to join our brave new
age-of-the-hyper-ostrakon, we must have gatekeepers (who hopefully will
only ever discriminate on the basis of approved criteria).

Nico
--

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:53:01 -0400

> only ever discriminate on the basis of approved criteria).

That is certainly not true. Particular since as with every other
international standards body working in the communications space, we have
to deal with a small number of very very well funded individuals who are
not actually individuals at all, they work for enterprises and in some
cases nation-state actors whose objectives are entirely malign.

Case in point was when IETF tried to deal with spam and of course some folk
paid by the spam kings showed up to act as wreckers.

Of course there are going to be nation state actors involved pursuing
covert agendas. It is naive to think otherwise.

Communication technology is never separate from politics. It is the very
essence.

Without gatekeepers, the field is open to those of malign purpose to bully
and disrupt.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:29:10 +0000

Gendispatch to bcc; terminology added.

    kind

This is incorrect. We can help by making sure that unconscious bias, for example, doesn't make people feel excluded.  We could decide to meet in regions around the world, so as not to favor those who live in, say, the United States or who can easily get there.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:22:16 -0500

> cases nation-state actors whose objectives are entirely malign.

They're still "volunteers" and _we_ don't yet gatekeep (at least we
don't keep anyone out proactively based on any criteria at all, but
reactively as a result of spam or harassment).  Maybe we should, but we
don't.  That part of my statement was not incorrect in the least.

> paid by the spam kings showed up to act as wreckers.

We currently only have processes to exclude as a result of a
participant's actions (e.g., harassment).  I wouldn't call that
gatekeeping because we're not keeping people out proactively, only
reactively.  And I don't believe there's been a single allegation that
any exclusion has been motivated by racism, sexism, or any other -ism,
not even politics.

> covert agendas. It is naive to think otherwise.

But this thread isn't about nation state actors pursuing covert (or
overt, for that matter) agendas.

> Without gatekeepers, the field is open to those of malign purpose to bully

Evidently we might need to discuss the meaning of "to gatekeep".  To me
it's mostly about keeping people out proactively, but I guess it means
more than that to others, so maybe I need to pick a better word.

Nico
--

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:23:57 +0000

> only ever discriminate on the basis of approved criteria).

The IETF does have gatekeepers. It has Chairs and others who should inform people when they do not abide by the IETF Guidelines for Conduct [RFC 7154] and also provides for people to be removed from lists who cannot behave according to these guidelines.
Here is one of my favorite quotes from that BCP: "We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument rather than through intimidation or personal attack."
For me, it's the fact that personal attacks are so frequently tolerated on IETF lists that keeps me from fully engaging.
I've noticed that people of certain backgrounds and experiences are more put off than others by witnessing and being subjected to personal attacks.
Therefore, tolerating personal attacks does lead to less diversity.
Barbara

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:38:34 -0500

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:23:57PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> The IETF does have gatekeepers. It has Chairs and others who should
> inform people when they do not abide by the IETF Guidelines for
> Conduct [RFC 7154] and also provides for people to be removed from
> lists who cannot behave according to these guidelines.

I don't call that gatekeeping.  We have bouncers, like bars and clubs,
to kick out people who misbehave, but we don't keep people out because
they're not attractive enough.  We can argue over what's a good term for
that function if you really think "gatekeeping" means something else,
but surely we all agree that the IETF does not vet new participants.

Nico
--