Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Fri, 02 April 2021 19:53 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.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 BD1553A21BB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 BKqbXc1t82EM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13463A21C2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B33EFDB85B; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 15:53:25 -0400
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
Message-ID: <YGd2NZ5GH6Iv6TTE@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HmN4oDuZ0KL-3TC9QQ5cwv2VZz8>
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, 02 Apr 2021 19:53:37 -0000
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 08:20:59PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know > of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to > take an approach that produces messages structured roughly [...] That works only when there's actually room for debate. Once the disagreement is over matters of in-group orthodoxy, direct logical argument ceases to be effective. Only satire or redicule (the emperor has no clothes) can sometimes penetrate the aura of orthodox conviction, to at least make the orthodox uncomfortable. Though one should also be prepared for anger and pitchforks. Cognitive dissonance can be a risky thing to provoke. For me, overt policing of what is allowed to be expressed, rather evokes the Soviet Union's pervasive and brutal hypocrisy that enforced conformity to dogmatic truths that were plainly at odds with reality. Indeed the conflict between the truths and reality was an essential feature of the system. True loyalty to the party demands that the truth be whatever the party says it is today. Lloyd's evocation of Orwell is entirely apt, for what is truly Orwellian, is not mere autocratic rule, but rather enforcement of unquestionable dogma that binds one to the collective. The present dogmas are for now somewhat more benign, we are expected to believe that making a non-trivial subset of existing contributors rather uncomfortable with the new normal, perhaps to the point of exclusion, is warranted by the ideal of being more inclusive of some hypothetical set of future contributors, who (rather questionably in the eyes of sceptics) were somehow deterred not by the obvious barriers of educational opportunities, employment opportunities, wealth, ... but rather because of the IETF's technical jargon. This strains credulity, but one is expected to believe what the party believes, and questioning it is taken to prove that one is in fact a traitor to the cause (a bigot who secretly or otherwise aims to exclude those groups). The result is unquestionably exclusionary, but excluding "those sorts" of people must surely be OK, after all they stand in the way of inclusion. I posit that more potential contributors will be lost on this long march than will ever be gained by whatever comfort some new recruits to the cause find in new jargon, purged of the sins of the past. I have no proof of this, it is a personal conviction. Others surely share it, and are likely feeling similary deterred from participating. So yes, I do find the proposed language policing Orwellian, and satire and ridicule more than deserved. For the record, I have no prejudice against any groups of people who'd like to participate in the IETF, and have no issue with an expectation of professional discourse. I do take issue with the notion that entirely out of context we need to expend precious IETF energy to seek out prejudice in technical jargon, atone for our sins, and be hyper-vigilant in our commucation lest it be possible for someone somewhere to read something other into them than their well-established technical meanings. Yes language evolves, and is said in polite society now, is not the same as it was decades or longer ago. This happens quite naturally, and there is little need for a formal registry of taboos to demonstrate our openness. If the text of an I-D is outside a WG's accepted lexicon, corrections will be suggested during the process, and the language in documents will naturally track language norms over time. What's objectionable is explicit policing of language by a select group of experts who can tell us what to think and how to think it. The CoC is presumably clear that professional conduct is expected, and harassment, bullying, ... are not tolerated, and all are welcome to participate. That should be quite enough. -- Viktor.
- A contribution to ongoing terminology work lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lars Eggert
- Re: [Terminology] A contribution to ongoing termi… Mallory Knodel
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Vittorio Bertola
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nick Hilliard
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- RE: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Larry Masinter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work S Moonesamy
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Sam Hartman
- RE: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Larry Masinter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Sam Hartman
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Vittorio Bertola
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Masataka Ohta
- April 1st RFCs (was Re: A contribution to ongoing… Adam Roach
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Randy Presuhn
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nick Hilliard
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Joel M. Halpern
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work S Moonesamy
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Leif Johansson
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Carsten Bormann
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Salz, Rich
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Wes Hardaker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Keith Moore
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lloyd W
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Fernando Gont
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Nico Williams
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Dan Harkins
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Lloyd W
- Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work Phillip Hallam-Baker