Re: Notification to list from IETF Moderators team

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

On 2022/10/13 17:22, I wrote:

> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 
>> Since the last last time you mention, AFAIK, there has been a lot more 
>> focus
>> on language in the IETF including inclusive language which made every 
>> RFC author
>> more involved in considerations about language by being called out on 
>> it by
>> RFC editor.
> 
> As for difficulties with inclusive language, see, for example:
> 
>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/szfzLAbV9EmQ7kmz3HGfaLkLhT0/
> 
> As such, insisting on inclusive language with your own idea
> on "inclusive" is rather a problem to be corrected, not a
> good practice to be followed, I think.

Are there anyone who still think, so called, "inclusive"
language, which, IMHO, actually is against inclusiveness only
to authorize/promote/encourage racial discrimination, is a
good practice to follow?

If not, can we conclude that we must ban the false attempt of
inclusiveness coined by a random idea by a some person who was,
but seemingly/hopefully is not, working for twitter?

I really don't want the Lords of the Rings banned merely
because it features "Gandalf the White".

					Masataka Ohta