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

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 8/12/2020 8:28 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 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).


I think that Brian is pointing in the right direction. Words like
"master-slave" or "black list" have been used in the past without intent
to exclude people and without engaging in racial categorizations.
Assigning motives a posteriori just alienates people. It is also clear
that language is evolving. Continued use of these terms would become a
cultural marker, making a statement that the IETF as a whole does not
want to make. We are thus much more likely to gather consensus by
stating that we want our communications to be professional and avoid
inappropriate metaphors.

-- Christian Huitema