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

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 2/13/2021 5:53 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> On 2/13/21 4:46 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2021 4:23 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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? 
>>
>> Two reasons. First, the practice of slavery is now generally 
>> considered abhorrent. Yes, it was widely practiced through history, 
>> from the bronze age all the way to the XIXth century, with a large 
>> diversity of perpetrators and targets.
>>
>
>   Actually the last of Europe's slave markets closed in the early 20th
> century. And Arabia's slave markets continued until the early 1960s.
>
>> Mostly, that has ceased, but history and legacy remains. A large part 
>> of the IETF activity happens in the US, and a significant fraction of 
>> the US population resent any kind of glorification of the past 
>> practices that enslaved their ancestors. So there is that, there 
>> definitely are people who are not happy about the imagery that such 
>> language evokes.
>>
>
>   You are claiming that using "master" and "slave" in a technical 
> description
> is some kind of glorification of the past practice of human bondage? 
> I'm sorry
> but that makes no sense. And it's kind of offensive because you're saying
> that anyone who has used those terms glorifies human bondage. Quite a 
> blanket
> statement of slander.

Dan, this kind of discussions are more fun in a bar than via e-mail. If 
you read my message again, I never asserted that using "master" and 
"slave" in a technical description
was some kind of glorification of the practice of human bondage. In the 
past, mostly it was not. It is more one of those things that a majority 
of people does without thinking about it. Yet a minority of people in 
attendance don't like it one bit. However, we are not in the past anymore.

>
>> Then, there is a broken glass effect. The relation between the legacy 
>> of slavery and the master-slave vocabulary has been exposed. Think of 
>> that as glass that was broken. Insisting on not replacing this 
>> vocabulary is not neutral. It amounts to repairing the broken glass 
>> and insisting on its continuous usage. That becomes an affirmative 
>> statement for dismissing any concerns about the legacy of slavery. 
>> That's definitely not the kind of statement that I would like to hear 
>> from the IETF.
>>
>
>   Can you explain this exposure? What's the relationship? And are you 
> able to
> describe the elusive "step 2" that I referred to above? That is, how does
> stopping the use of these words make the IETF more inclusive and diverse?

As I said, we are not in the past anymore. In the present, actively 
refusing to discard old-fashion language is not a neutral stance. It is 
an active statement. At best, it could be interpreted as a statement 
that the IETF dislike the activists who are pushing for change. At 
worse, it will be interpreted as a statement that yes, the IETF 
considers slavery a benign activity, so prevalent in the past that there 
is no possible harm in continued usage of such imagery.

Which is more or less the same point that Mark has been making. Standing 
out from the whole industry would not be a passive stance. It would be 
actively harmful for the IETF.

-- Christian Huitema