Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 02:32 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
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 44708130DD0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JWFOnM_9O1p4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C99D128B14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id e12-v6so10710584iok.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lipb/sTmsBxD8kLGQFaqjVBsObHOFYTbY1AZggTHEXI=; b=HV8V0PIt6U0IxWYhjNwwbk8SfnvoXQFv2VCCXSYOQtlA9dpaHnfDmiF+zK703BzVSL dEVweVdr5TDzPqFsi5JXL9DE1p5fQk4YejkF18GI/iMc+S8wXbmfah6dJRXP9lprJ98p modSsWVCuzIe01WKP89v5ItxuyRSY6Wy8WRsfrNEAb8a7INbji1dXigcL+VyUfAN7N7c LKQTXh/UVRgIdEhy+LWU3Lp/UGyS31i6jIN6RTOtvLOElqxEHAY9TwQPWD4kbGgONrNV OgosfPj3JuitrfCJsDZ5+IAy0YxSkb6T4gZzQXEMj3Ilj0WC/b/GM6Il7eeKnty3Qjed jQ4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lipb/sTmsBxD8kLGQFaqjVBsObHOFYTbY1AZggTHEXI=; b=qIme/9Ed6yzI6GCo9hvb3mtCrXfT6Ec4z0U9747oUdNOK4lQz9A2THic0e3SjfuVyX BiHPZO5wiLaxD2P6swQ0pE0D78z7sMlOHPT5wSJGMvWz6NMaGw5bMx9Ea9gj2a2qSCfN LcB7OhS3UjHZm3gwiSfn3g7I+t60sxRjj+if2bRTHCkrCmuwbMirpS1gP8HAhMH+MG1e aEXlRtBT1q47N3NyFaNDCvpKyRiPTZd8p3w0LJ/8Erni2+5no2Cm3YX1kt0JDpVtJhCl yxHqIt3L4aQEMvlYNjrPkPBW8qNtJyGABDscV3vEOLSDQbHV8ZsCx98ZhiSxdEwMTtVN KB4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BLNwf3ofM091iwrw3u50yyYeXJW1FXIQqhoRoDQxPP/Y4ETlXO 2rJHcsl3UObYGd5H9MOOEUWStDE1g4+3ICaMGRNGXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY/f1DWsn8C57gSHgTuLfL1G9zQBWKS9mZjQ6ZyED9d9K6avtcY0k8QnvLGai7R281H+zIRUDG+Si47vAWA/2A=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9108:: with SMTP id t8-v6mr36188381iod.260.1537497133332; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <20180920174256.GC68853@isc.org> <5BA454E1.4020105@signal100.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BA454E1.4020105@signal100.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:31:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rd6e0yG_OffDcCVgLa0ayEDPcfF4yb1a=1d0d3rMZD=0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: mark.rousell@signal100.com
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079bf22057658723f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4nVCyF1v4QvaFQ7EU4jRq_iIcE0>
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, 21 Sep 2018 02:32:16 -0000
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote: > On 20/09/2018 18:42, Evan Hunt wrote: > > The use of a term that's likely be *perceived* as weighted by some > readers -- even if the author didn't intend it that way, and even if person > who coined the term in the first place didn't intend it that way -- can > still hinder communication with those readers. > > [...] > > If it's easy to find an equivalent term without the baggage, then it seems > like common sense to use that term instead. > > > Reasonable common sense to my mind is to use clear, established, industry > standard terminology and for people with baseless perceptions that such > terminology is somehow aimed at them to learn that the context matters > (i.e. that contextually relevant usage of certain terms is not "weighted" > or negative in any way whatsoever). > While I do agree with John Levine that there are many additional human rights and issues to consider, I don't see how one can disregard the origins of "blacklist". These don't sound neutral - and saying it is industry standard is another way of saying "keep out" to those impacted or that they must deal with the stereotypes and unpleasant reminders. WE invent what becomes industry standard terminology - and given that the next challenge is growing the Internet to the next billion people, whom will come from different cultures, countries, and backgrounds - taking a few moments for a descriptive and thoughtful term isn't a lot to ask. Please consider if you have ever had a term or terminology that disturbs or bothers you. Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" - each use serves to remind women that they are the exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter. Being inclusive is about being welcoming and not merely not deliberately hostile. To grow the technical community in diversity and including many viewpoints to handle new technical challenges as more folks join the Internet, this matters. Regards, Alia -- > Mark Rousell > > > > >
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel