IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 26 July 2020 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 A42CF3A0EA7; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 sCVN9j9mA-qe; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 106143A0F0B; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF5Vt2VgRzFkt; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:51:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1595775110; bh=/z51P1PR4pKrKRpUoGfb3Evq24jtTqN0pVZac4LYzhg=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=NzDWtITbml1HCNBRI37AYFgFYHZ/f4ZvFPSuzfZ1GDtBwhSRw58KukmfX/ljgD11j k81AjOZjiVUBfee87+im6gTl+DN142su8M59InCr7svjcacxo9kPWPnA02aIn3reB6 hbMoxfYJ+LNcna9DDo1Vk8rM0xETzOjl/BdFhXwQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blvVGl7aCuJi; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (unknown [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.110.157.210] (unknown [193.110.157.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4293E6029A48; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 10:51:48 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 10:51:47 -0400
Message-Id: <BEB23B53-3529-4304-B08D-A308B8E825E6@nohats.ca>
References: <dc32abdd-d361-a81b-a61d-4f4f69443e22@si6networks.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <dc32abdd-d361-a81b-a61d-4f4f69443e22@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0bdIdnALcYRduX8kEbW9nlVHQVI>
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: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:51:56 -0000

On Jul 26, 2020, at 02:38, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Since we are at it, may I ask that the following terms be added to the "discussion":

> * balkanization

Balkanization is a good example of words that are commonly used without the users realizing how painful or offensive a word can be to some. I didn’t know its use was problematic to a large group of people until Vesna Manojlovic from RIPE-NCC explained this to me back in 2000.

An RFC is a proper way for our community to write down these things so that we can refer people to it who might not be aware of these.

And if I use other words that are problematic that I am not aware of, my personal goal is to generally be acting in a way that people around me feel comfortable enough to approach me - be it email or in person - to point this out to me.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email