Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Riccardo Bernardini <framefritti@gmail.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 10:23 UTC
Return-Path: <framefritti@gmail.com>
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 08FE6130DCD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:23:03 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9pKyxH9BHeiG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 E491D130DC3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id u1-v6so7408321eds.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TfRLJfgvINVJ96qSWOgF+xIHPmvDDSdRvQgqMIHqZZc=; b=rojtFPXbbVdRocAsS4NYUs5oY6aIfjedFQcYSJRn84a2nJDnKQO3qjyL+UWMZfHZTs UPxVGvubELeIe/zhbp1/siQFOFtRaDhHYq16LZBNrFYz05Jd+zqk8mCteLIvseAlQAIO DACew2M245VRZSEhbU4nPBmqo33TFRMvC4rlE3cBNQib+xEy1Cr7o1dLsb3LCOkpYKf0 /Yy0hYWslyiUHyGNiLwisCIRP4rU8aSFNGZEhMVz3Tqk2M7uGJ7HROW76KtycXDblqM0 j7TEVNFRfhVVvo2xcHXPaE6tW2mvJI9DRBrIAYKKIGBCk4oIUgHrX8Xw0hPlibfH5bsR fFhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TfRLJfgvINVJ96qSWOgF+xIHPmvDDSdRvQgqMIHqZZc=; b=qQY0qR4oZee1GayNRylEDmYrNGdCScPWjqrsh8ds0vCaJiToQpEilMNNiiUm6pf0P6 QJI/klWdD9TXQESuFei0G87Xq4stgSdKzsLIXg/2fAF8D4aAkQrlqYMs3fAflR+dTrv2 S7B566drpPjd/Bf6kfkxaxC2lCAVWnSEMqrhXRp2RdTlJPDivp/vBdtEcqnlZCk1qE08 k4tsZP8EnSAA1ORBOoe+/rnFbagNo4lThiaRnnrhN+FWouKwhhechauSJtHbxcnCG6lj 0VBHaq7RJYrb50cVPFFtYWWvriIhkEBij9lk4LP2P6esyqyWnginwzx7qBZsVdAFVVN5 5zww==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CkmPUuRLcxDXowsJe4QOktWvVuMwBh76a8+BBIjcz7yzBsK134 W8AsPLCnaGuxITDJ2dpPb+16QIzDxgpoX6TJ3sJW
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdbki6pnNUng6jwPrCLEzWzha8nDici5aNZdNqnUBSwUD016VMSWRgHG+Yrus8Ub1JnKLWixL6hheFW9yirW2u8=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:93c5:: with SMTP id o63-v6mr3433684eda.154.1537438978323; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org>
In-Reply-To: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org>
From: Riccardo Bernardini <framefritti@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:22:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CABSMSPXxg-UTZzXREcbYQiQgzAwXP4uUGPtN+jWrYomZRQxL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: lists@digitaldissidents.org
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ab89505764ae819"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/THUEgCBW9MbzTNM9xMjCVc3eK_U>
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:23:03 -0000
I think that it is important to discuss it in order to avoid further degeneracy in this direction. I expect that what I am going to say will be quite unpopular, but I think that a line need to be draw somewhere. Do not get me wrong, I am totally in favor of diversity, inclusiveness and avoiding offensive language, but in the cases at hand (master/slave and blacklist/whitelist) the expressions never had any negative or offensive weight and if someone gets offended by some concatenation of ideas, that is a problem of its. I mean, it is like a neighbor that complains because when you come home from work at 6pm you take a shower. "I am having dinner at that time and hearing the water of your shower make me thing about bathrooms just when I am eating." If this seems exaggerate to you, please note that it is not too different from being offended by master/slave because reminds you about slave trades happened few centuries ago. (BTW, slavery has not been limited to that period, so I guess many people should be offended). Also whitelist/blacklist _never_had_any_racial_meaning_ at all. . If they remind you about racism, the problem is definitively on your side. Another example is currently discussed on inksscape mailing lists: someone complained because inkscape has a translation in pig latin (as I understand was added for testing and then it remained there) and the term "pig latin" offended him (I know it is a "him" because I know the name). The idea "let's not offend anyone," while good in theory leave you open to the attack of definitively oversensitive people. I mean, if I say "Do not wear a tie. It looks like a phallic symbol and it offends me. Moreover, it is sexist." are you going to prohibits ties? What is the limit of reasonable complaints and when a complaint is excessive? Difficult to say, as in many other cases the border between reasonabilit and excess is fuzzy, nevertheless there are cases that are clearly on one side. The cases master/slave, whiteist/blacklist and "pig latin" are definitively, IMHO, on the excessive side. Running for cover... R. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:27 AM Niels ten Oever < lists@digitaldissidents.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > On the hrpc-list [0] there has been an intense conversation which was > spurred by the news that the Python community removed Master/Slave > terminology from its programming language [1]. > > In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like > Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology > that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common. > > This is not a discussion that can be resolved in hrpc, but rather should > be dealt with in the IETF community (because hrpc doesn't make policy > for terminology in the IETF), which is why I am posting this here. > > If people find the discussion worthwhile, we might also be just in time > to request a BoF on this topic. > > Looking forward to discuss. > > Best, > > Niels > > > [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/ > [1] > > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/masterslave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-programming-language > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > >
- 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