Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It’s not controversial.  That is, the problem isn’t that there is
> controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The
> problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is.
I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, seemingly by people
with way too large a following on sites like Twitter. I'm asking why it
is controversial.

> The problem is that it is a useful harassment tool for racists.. The
> U.S. has a large enough population of racists that it’s hard for a
> Black person to avoid them. And the term “master/slave” is a way to
> get in a racist dig without being called on it: you just emphasize
> the words a bit as you use them, looking the Black person in the eye
> as you do so, and everyone knows what’s being said, but there’s no
> way to complain about it without seeming crazy.
As I thought then. Racism in the United States. I suggest that the US
solves these issues internally. Police brutality and racism in the
country are very real but are not something a change in nomenclature
will change at all.

> So by using these terms in standards, we are putting a tool for
> harassment in the hands of people who will definitely use it. We
> should not do that, and the desire to continue doing things as we
> always have is not a good reason not to change.
That's like saying that in order for someone who wants to be a surgeon
but hates blood, we need to remove the blood. Absolutely nonsensical.

> This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going
> to be fruitful.
I still see draft updates to the RFC being posted regularly. From that
it seems reasonable to assume that the RFC is still under development.
Am I wrong?

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover