Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Fri, 21 September 2018 04:35 UTC
Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
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 CC6B8130DFC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk
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 MQTY_Roa67GB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic301-20.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic301-20.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [77.238.176.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6CB1130DF0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1537504515; bh=ketIallHaaVY715vytPB3miN98GrU5SDS5QS7kvzn7w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Jrta+00xz9jsRcW4TiMKCJgebLWuU5UtWqd00tkbdDRTV+VEhLx2lVDHN91JsPYdhq/WCIBAwS497MssifkR52cRZJC9oZJmKajznH2UWWeJjiSv1yqRSVW8eCyFj9HxxC73fgnkdKWpirG/9ddxOlkipBbtfMv78u82LVGmIleGGvY6+B6zL3cn2FeaE9aSNPnIE44AsH4kOQ5GQK+1EuGVthFDRYW/0DMcJ1+JQEfrckg3o3zJ0ZwNXEUk8AR2ZcYa/NLqpzmVqZu5a7OWo2zkiw6q5JFhPZGEX8a8PW7yCdj+ESlKHCLXTgvNenPGu8SNPjBPGXSO+HPfKDUkAw==
X-YMail-OSG: nxRYA7oVM1np9F0NriEsqfVWfEMpzhxtjwON9OPcVmTuVCGI6bo6Oc8UU1Hp02D szt6iQfgXDiws1eYuokwUrIyTPbFKT52P4e53y.DA_JXut57Z.ihsMJBLUsvHHLdOhxNWzuXLFxx 9SiL5XARbD5NUlF62T1WsjPICoBh78dmGpvwhKYth0O4XwF73MPewW6Px_oauTWHLOAAIy55kcX7 HjUmwq7HK7f2P4cpKQfU5PAz9oXybWvynN0tEcDSdJAdsWdqOOMIa2paoPLg2zRn0HtVPkJJKlLv n1sQjer6CaIvLr0Cp2ooqm_pSCetbKGrMONvBH89ioFL_AdjIcocayLTsOC6zExbW0P3aLnHfXKt QtoAzOeHNCd5Gv7X1Ap6Gwnx_VldrPdaGpU0qmR7G5qnM_SIGoI5vKZm9ux4O4rZByAdT7eN3Azn 4zKkP2GIWJ8920B9BPzmTZHzvoSyDmnpXNq5HRaILqq9QE.cmYwSZGgam73OVbko.qoPjXUubTic JmDPOsVa.xk4r28lRrA6jCJJxvbOTsEOpMdHDox7_qbuVfolS1rOSqhtxPyE_kGfXmI34EO6Gvbt meSBwxTB2bkXt1ahWR.B8.0mFK3fJFJwuJ53cpJOz2pkRLgB9OClmFfhUXXHYJPhtMFipc6Sj6DH .X5eggJ8.jUiV.hnyL_BCQF9FMoQZOD7SkCtzyrzWEPfGWajVDrF8lMnv2e_6pjAN9aUTf0ggB.x vuZtT707XD6ST1KnPBxlNHrXB_k3uaKzbCntsQlNhwr9PrTsEjQQeTR5uv5eYpoh4QSbbArfnrgr rO65qaAmAXexW1n0AzbCkJy.Dem9rGXnPhi7Do7Q_.bROQVG_vdQXUvDF4QdszXnhKBHc3TQBVUc XBv5yHJqm7brvtsmtH2MBb_eWJbsrhItxcCvzCr.SL6TPR_I2Bvd.qxyq2MjUCzDJcsXILr7yXjI Qtyd73Q3sWF1s7qtcMTEGwoInbZyZDfa9KXCRfRpHLOthNqBX19pKAA--
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic301.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:35:15 +0000
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:34:58 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <682311723.14104310.1537504498982@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BA466B2.8060705@signal100.com>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <20180920174256.GC68853@isc.org> <5BA454E1.4020105@signal100.com> <CAG4d1rd6e0yG_OffDcCVgLa0ayEDPcfF4yb1a=1d0d3rMZD=0w@mail.gmail.com> <5BA45FFF.80004@signal100.com> <5BA466B2.8060705@signal100.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14104309_867528553.1537504498980"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.12406 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KNu78VhzFPXn-ZH0X1M3PZZo7ks>
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, 21 Sep 2018 04:35:19 -0000
'"Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am)' Oh, agreed. 'Folks' means I'm about to be patronised by an American. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood From: Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018, 13:35 Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs On 21/09/2018 04:05, Mark Rousell wrote: Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" - each use serves to remind women that they are the exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter. "Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am) are not industry standard terminology. Although "folks" has nothing to do with industry standard terminology of any sort, I mentioned as an aside that it is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am. I said this merely to note it as an aside. I'd never actually complain about it, no matter how annoying I might find it. The reason I would not complain about it is because I am not so selfish or self-centred as to expect other people to change their culture to suit me. As an adult, I accept that I can adapt to work with their culture (if I work within it, join it, live with it or communicate with it), even if some of their phraseology might privately annoy me. In the parallel context of industry terminology, for a newcomer to a particular industry to get upset over certain well established industry standard terms is making a mistake: They are making the mistake of thinking that it's all about them when, in fact, the usage of the terms that bother them (if any) are nothing whatsoever to do with them (just as the use of "folks" would not be aimed at me)! The industry terms are entirely neutral terms, used only because they have clearly understood meaning in that industry. Joining the industry means, amongst other things, learning the terminology and learning not to take it personally when it is in reality entirely non-personal. Industry terminology really is just neutral, non-harmful communication. Learning it is part of education and adaptation as an adult. In short, no one should expect the mass of people to adapt to you just because it's you; try instead to adapt to the already existing standards that everyone else has been able to adapt to, standards that are not in any way whatsoever shutting you out (since any words you don't like are not aimed at you at all) and which are fully inclusive to everyone involved in the industry, both old and new, not just you. -- Mark Rousell
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel