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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Christian,

> On Feb 13, 2021, at 4:46 PM, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2/13/2021 4:23 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
>> 
>>   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. 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Let's charter this working group and be done with it.
> 

I agree.

I also think that diversity in the IETF and language in RFCs are mostly different topics.

Diversity in the IETF is about who participates in the IETF, increasing participation in the IETF, etc.    RFCs are used by a much broader Internet community that the folks who participate in the IETF.

Bob