Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:38:24PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Nico, Fernando,
> At 02:25 PM 28-07-2020, Nico Williams wrote:
> > In regards to "folks"?!
> 
> Yes.  Please see
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kSG5GfCE5ozrD-mRiJ4lGu-E9zY/

This is fun.  We can now agree that we can find no common language.
"Folks" is one of very few words we have that are gender-neutral for
plural second person.

> > I'm from Argentina.  I spent 15 years in the NYC area.  I've since been
> > living in Texas.  I use Texas-isms all the time to demonstrate comfort.
> > 
> > Yes, I suppose I could use "y'all" and "folks" to talk-down-to, or sign
> > "Cheers," (an Ozzie-ism?) as in "bleep off", and perhaps I have, but I
> > also sign "Cheers," frequently out of habit, as a positive note.  Because:
> 
> The words which you mentioned above would likely be used by people who have
> some affinity with a geographical area.

Perhaps more than very local.

> > Well, context simply matters.  Much language is dual-use!  :)
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Intent also matters.  Lack of intent to offend does not mean offense
> > won't be received, and it does not mean that the first person shouldn't
> > consider adapting their speech to avoid giving further offense when they
> > learn of it, nor does it mean that the second person shouldn't learn to
> > identify contexts that make the apparently-offensive speech not-quite-
> > so.  Lack of intent certainly means we should be open to forgiveness.
> 
> Should previous complaints be taken into account?  Should the differences in
> culture be taken into account?

Perhaps.  Without a counter-point to the complaint about "folks" one
might simply acquiesce to its non-use.  With counter-points perhaps the
right answer is to consider the context more fully.  That would be a
good outcome.

> > Empathy requires we make an effort to assume good faith, and that we be
> > open to learning and forgiving.
> 
> There is a message at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/PJJ3GuNKOlcNrmu1ETZeTINFHwY/
> If that is the principle which reflects reality, I doubt that anyone who
> falls outside it would be open to forgiveness.

[I'm not seeing enough context there to understand what you're referring
to, and I'm not going to read that thread just to see it.  Can you
summarize what's going on here.  I do understand about recall petitions,
but that entire subject is rather inside baseball compared to this
thread.  In particular I'm not seeing what forgiveness has to do with
Pete's post that you linked to.]

Note I'm not saying that we must assume good faith always.  At some
point one's patience with people who argue in bad faith runs out.

> At 02:57 PM 28-07-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > I guess much of this issue would be solved by applying Postel's Principle?
> 
> I don't think so as the principle was established for a different context.

"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others" was meant for a different context, but it does capture the
concept of being forgiving.  In protocol implementations Postel's
principle nowadays is not viewed very kindly, is it, but in
interpersonal relationships, there might be something to it.  In this
context the idea is to be careful with the language you use, but not to
be quick to condemn others.  I like it.

Nico
--