IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 20 September 2018 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
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 2A8BC130EBD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RbQC-enYZ79C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405C1130E4B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B173F1D2818 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xG2WmRyQ_nJs for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.119.75.38] (unknown [23.81.209.163]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DD9F1D1B84 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:33:16 -0700
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Message-Id: <8A554460-D988-4946-B0C3-CD302D792069@rfc-editor.org>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com> <c755471a7f744fdd958759c6c5001147@exchange02.office.nic.se> <20180920170939.GA68853@isc.org> <968547d5-7e96-5c31-69a3-20456baccf1a@comcast.net> <DBA2C6BE-47BE-4264-9BF6-C0A4D1AF84A5@rfc-editor.org> <1ABDFE95-C9E6-40AE-913A-0E4C62531F50@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <1ABDFE95-C9E6-40AE-913A-0E4C62531F50@mnot.net>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16A366)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HXXkqpSaQC54DdkoztYZBxYATZs>
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 18:33:27 -0000


> On Sep 20, 2018, at 11:27, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 2:14 pm, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I can only imagine the possible discussions between the editors and authors, given the heated debates now over ‘simple’ terms like that versus which.
>> 
>> I’m glad the community is having this conversation, because any changes to the use of terms and language in an RFC must come from the community. I don’t think it can reasonably be imposed by the editors. Not unless we significantly change the relationship between the RFC Editor and the authors.
> 
> It obviously won't work as an adversarial relationship (e.g., the RFC editor "enforcing" a rule), and I don't think anyone has suggested that. 

I did read the suggestion initially as maintaining and helping enforce a list of words/terms, which I’m definitely uncomfortable with.

> 
> Is it reasonable to mention this as something to think about when you're authoring / reviewing a draft, and have a discussion as adults if someone thinks a term might have such an issue?

Sure, and we do that now. Though it happens that authors get upset when questioned about word choice; we deal with it, but it happens.

> 
> If not, why? Noticing potential issues and discussing their resolution seems pretty bread-and-butter around here IME.
> 

I think you and I are considering this at different places on a continuum. Asking if something is potentially awry, yes, of course (while being sad that this wasn’t questioned sooner in the process). Maintaining a list of possibly inappropriate words and enforcing their review, which implies accountability for the list, that I’m not comfortable with.

-Heather

> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email