Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 2/13/21 10:38 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 13/2/21 15:27, Dan Harkins wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>    step 1: stop using the words "master" and "slave"
>>    step 2: ???
>>    step 3: more diverse and inclusive IETF
>>
>> So anyone who can explain step 2 in sufficient detail to get from 
>> step 1 to
>> step 3 would probably be an authority on the matter.
>
> Shouldn't the first question be "where do you want to get?". And, if 
> the answer is "more diverse and inclusive IETF", then the group should 
> study what's the high-order bit to get there?

   That seems to already be the answer. Have you heard anyone argue 
otherwise?

> This seems like arguing the other way around: "Tell me how inclusive 
> language helps diversity and inclusiveness such that we can pursue it".

   No, what I'm doing is asking people who are arguing that language can be
"exclusive" to show their reasoning. What is the result of using "exclusive"
language in an RFC? Well, an IETF that is not diverse and inclusive. I just
want to see how that works.

   We have specifically targeted the words "master" and "slave". How does
replacing those words with others affect diversity and inclusion at the 
IETF?

   regards,

   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