Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language - word list

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

My reasoning on asking for a list of terms that are more often 
problematic, and likely candidate replacements for them, is to help the 
reviewers.
I had not even realized that grandfathered has unfortunate connotations 
and associations.
I do not expect non-native speakers of English, much less non-native 
speakers whose culture is very different from typical western European 
and American culture, to easily be able to recognize what the concern is.
I would not label such a list "must be avoided", as that is clearly too 
strong.  Particularly since almost all words have multiple uses.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/9/2020 1:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Sunday, August 9, 2020 13:16 -0400 Joel Halpern Direct
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I believe I agree with you in the sense that if we as a
>> community do not have rough consensus that this kind of
>> checking should be done, then ADs should not be asking
>> reviewers to perform this kind of checking.  (I agree that
>> individuals are always free to look for things.)
> 
> Agreed, with the observation that "please be on the lookout for
> problems of this sort" is very different from "please watch out
> for this particular list of words", especially if the latter
> implies that words not on the list are inherently less important.
> 
>> Personally, I think it would help us on multiple levels if we
>> could, as a community, agree that this kind of checking should
>> be done, and the issues should be raised.
> 
> In case it has not been clear, I agree.  I even agree with
> comments that our doing so is long overdue.
> 
> However, if "this kind of checking" involves a list of "bad" or
> "problematic" words (with or without a list of proposed
> substitutions), then (i) I think it is unlikely that we can
> build a stable list of that sort without favoring issues in some
> cultures and ignoring issues in others (and I personally think
> that would be bad) and (ii) Based, if nothing else, on the
> discussions on this list, I don't see an acceptable level of
> community consensus emerging any time soon (just my opinion, of
> course).  So I prefer to trust the community --on a document by
> document and usage by usage basis-- rather than an authoritative
> list or committee.
> 
> I also prefer discussion and mutual education with authors and
> within WGs to letting things get as far as cross-area review
> teams -- to that point that, if problematic language reaches a
> review team, IETF LC, or the IESG without, at least, significant
> discussion about appropriateness, we should view it as enough of
> a process failure to touch off a discussion among ADs and WG
> Chairs about how such language can be flagged before reaching
> those points in the future.
> 
>>    Neither you nor I
>> have the right to call the rough consensus for the IETF list /
>> community.
> 
> Of course.  Neither does the IESG or any single AD if they are
> doing it on the basis of what they believe would be community
> consensus if only the community were more enlightened.  And that
> is precisely the boundary between "can the AD ask?" (the
> question you asked) and "can the AD require or insist?" (the
> question that, IMO, has been implied by many of the comments on
> this list).
> 
> best,
>     john
>