Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Hello,

On 10/16/20 6:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Bron,
>
>> On 16 Oct 2020, at 15:02, Bron Gondwana <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Oh I'm glad I missed this the other day in my "jetlag" induced stupor 
>> (I've been attending CalConnect virtual conference from 2-6am 
>> Melbourne time this week), so I didn't get dragged in at the time.
>>
>> I was very disappointed that the key question that I think needs to 
>> be answered by the community, and particular by those who favour 
>> draft-knodel, didn't have time for proper discussion at the last 
>> gendispatch meeting.
>>
>> *Does the IETF have confess to some "sins"?*
>
> With regard to language, it seems good to recognize that there are 
> phrases that we should avoid.  But I don’t know if that is the same as 
> a confession, or that we have to beat our backs on one to address 
> language.
>
>>
>> I believe this is the core issue underlying much of the 
>> disagreement.  I feel that there's not consensus on whether we have 
>> something to apologise for.

   I agree with that. Individually many of us may have things to 
apologize for but
organizationally, no, I don't think so.

>> There's also a sub issue hidden under that, which is this question:
>>
>> *Is the IETF systemically racist?*
>
>
> Is that the effort or is the effort to correct language?  The above 
> question seems to me a great opportunity to rathole forever.

   "correct language" for what reason and to what end? Addressing the
short-comings of  the English language are not in the IETF's bailiwick. We
should strive to use clear metaphors that can be understood by people
from different cultures and who do not have English as a first language.
I think there is consensus on that. "Correcting" language in order to
address a demographic issue that some people have raised is another
matter though.

   It's not clear that our use of language is the cause of any demographic
issue we may have and it's not clear that "correcting" our language would
have any impact whatsoever on the demographic issue.

   For instance, replacing a commonly accepted cryptographic term of art
like "master key" with something like "main key" will, IMHO, have
absolutely no effect on systemic racism or any demographic imbalance
in the IETF. Why do it then? Why are we having this exercise?

   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