Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 24/07/2020 09:06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:12:12PM -0700,
>   Carrick Bartle <cbartle891=[e-mail]> wrote
>   a message of 33 lines which said:
>
>> I think we can all agree that slavery is bad, right? So why should
>> we even allude to it in technical documents?
>
> It is bad for humans but, in RFCs, we are talking about network
> entities, software. To take another example, we all agree that killing
> humans is bad, yet we don't hesitate to kill a runaway program, for
> instance. That's because human rights apply... to humans only, not to
> processes.

Where will it end?  I see the widespread use in technology of male and 
female, as in plug and socket, which will be exclusionary to non-binary; 
as is perhaps the use of 'binary' in technical documents.

This statement has a very narrow focus and one that seems to me, as a 
European, to be US-centric, perhaps exlusionary to other countries.  How 
relevant is it to China or Brazil or   ..?

I wish I was joking but I see this as the thin end of a wedge that will 
disrupt the work of the IETF.

Tom Petch

> .
>