RE: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

OK, I'll be drawn...

I can quite believe that contributors to the IETF can have and express
opinions on the language used in a variety of published works that were not
produced in the IETF. I cannot believe that those opinions will have any
influence on those publications.

If we limit our discussions to those things we can control (i.e., the use of
language in future work produced within the IETF) we may have a more useful
discussion.

We might rephrase the question as (please note the wording carefully!):
If we have reason to believe that the use of a particular term might bring
the IETF into disrepute or might cause some people to feel excluded from
IETF participation, would we prefer to use a different term?

Note that question does not ask:
- is the reason to believe credible?
- is the reputational damage bothersome?
- is it sensible for people to feel excluded?

I am hoping that no one here assembled wishes to deliberately use a term
that they know will cause disrepute or make people feel excluded. 

So the debate collapses to a discussion of which terms are problematic. 
It is a classic problem that we find it hard to judge which things we say or
do are upsetting to others. Perhaps we can take advice from experts in the
field?

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
Sent: 27 July 2020 15:30
To: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary
Language

Salz, Rich wrote:

> I think we're going in circles here.

That should be because you won't face the source of
the problem saying:

 > commenting on Thriller or Tolkien's writings -- isn't useful
 > to have a productive conversation, and I won't be enticed there.

						Masataka Ohta