Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 28/07/2020 17:00, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:35:45AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
>
> I'm surprised not to find there anything like a survey of RFCs, current
> I-Ds, and maybe even expired I-Ds, of problematic language.  Or any
> analysis of the prevalence of problematic language and trends in its
> use.  Did we use to have a problem that we now no longer have?  Do we
> still have a problem?  Is it getting better or worse?
>
> Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to perform such a survey?
>
> (The RPC presumably would only survey RFCs, not I-Ds.)
>
> It would be quite useful to have such a survey.

Nico

Uplist you will find an e-mail from me about blacklist which showed that 
in my own local (statistically unsound) filestore of RFC and I-D the use 
has much declined compared to 10 years ago.  I think that that is one 
term that we have informally recognised as unsuitable and acted upon 
without any need for an IESG statement.  (I was responding erroneously 
to a post that was about black magic that I thought was about blacklist 
from Rich Salz).

At a tangent, I keep looking to see if my posts have got through the 
rules imposed by my ESP; if I ever refer to the LSR routing protocol 
that is not OSPF by its usual abbreviation, then my post is .. well, 
disappears without trace.  You can guess what word I was about to use:-)

Tom Petch



>
> Nico
>