IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 24 July 2020 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB113A0A8F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 xTazAkz2qJaC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A3B3A0A3B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ietf@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 06OClrQu027415 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:47:55 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <E90735A0-90B4-4855-BCE1-3F1A70B405F8@eggert.org>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <0fbc6882-1e5b-c0a1-7dea-1f9cf7084af5@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:47:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.24
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E90735A0-90B4-4855-BCE1-3F1A70B405F8@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/--MayPbqT3Ht0tiGOQeA2CZUg5c>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:49:18 -0000

Lars Eggert wrote on 24/07/2020 13:32:
> Sure, an occasional change in terminology is only a small step.
as a general observation, languages and customs evolve continuously, and 
things that were written 100 or even 50 years ago often strike us as 
discriminatory or use terms which are now considered offensive to one 
degree or another.  It would be unusual not to change aspects of 
terminology over time.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email