IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B392B3A1378 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e5X4KkZyIxKE for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1033A10E5 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:2050:70d7:6aa2:63d2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:2050:70d7:6aa2:63d2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0223A28397B; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>
Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <20200722163704.8ADB21D61A46@ary.qy> <BB06C1C7-41F6-4AEA-8267-54AB0BFD12FE@gmail.com> <B78B8B1D-A941-4445-BB04-B81B2F00F611@episteme.net> <B07E592A-EE83-41E7-B86D-A3442DE31AD3@cooperw.in> <87AF7F28-98A8-4406-B20D-76570078B6EF@ischool.berkeley.edu> <14018709-49ab-0cb8-343c-e4edbcde28ca@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <6e2e232a-2565-c87a-9ead-f1ca23323224@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:28:02 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <14018709-49ab-0cb8-343c-e4edbcde28ca@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/GEw73o8wi5GImJMGAJDqVuPnATQ>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:54:29 -0000

On 9/8/20 20:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
> 
> Yes, but a blocklist/allowlist like the W3C's will not get very far in
> the IETF's world of rough consensus. I think we have to be more subtle.
> For example, words like "oppressive" and "inclusive" or "exclusionary"
> are themselves value judgments and carry a certain amount of bias
> with them. You can clearly see that in the endless loop of discussion
> on the IETF main lits. I'd much rather we say "inappropriate" or
> "unprofessional" when defining our topic.

Even more... they result in value-judgement discussions that somehow 
ironically seem to mostly exclude what would be the most 
affected/oppressed/excluded parties (so to speak).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status