Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 00:35 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 8A08A130E39 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 azxiipOQb44H for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 8E88C130E2A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id u12-v6so5443234ioc.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JNyGbtq7ljBFX1dr17QC9nwFJwbbLFbw0TCO2tJFGMg=; b=eNQHx8jvsyXZeQVtVm7DGogkQC9T5ObqV5d9nidLvopVTGcxpl53NfkvT4JZc9w1iw s9EIAw99vshM8ijSSnXKRnt3Cg0aQtfF083kAUzl4Rnhe8hVpmfBB/Tkw+ec9kMT1qLz 6OfS8W+rDU8AQunWfptRiWmiCGDcW2uenUKMRnpbl2SHIeoNyUPgnV1DXf9aFS1xnZLG 5vyR6rNwF224iBmqWscx1XiPJgPFLLZaslh0mIN/eRg25GAYFwQCaX6SpoS8miu0NH3F vMhRwMGNJDeURJJxbX+oxz5mNIJOr9BhXCeXZ8uxcR4JUNscxJjSG2rMeT6MsksmySWC zxQQ==
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=JNyGbtq7ljBFX1dr17QC9nwFJwbbLFbw0TCO2tJFGMg=; b=bOEQtQkdHuVv3OKoJnHISlJIxH8jIcRDU41QjM8OYRGXNAvVAXALgVcxCw9RVW6guK 1BegWAOZlUh8nDGRbevY92xamZFVNPeMWR8zLYRu43JrKfTc8Fqe8dVee6Nwb0OA+aFN 8TKiy9g+VfMK0bBBa6iQGPlZFDOGiZ8GwK2Jd+CHxsubhzxF1jEQSrolN9EFnLqLxP6Z puYD+9QaPI7lZFg1H8UkY5rtKA+bpR1F821AnX9xPd4PprtKwVFCNKwbOqLQVB8WpRgS B2bwSxDASnJuVYdcy1dEiwo08vUY7io9bM0GrW1ECRyyBtctNsIzGI0ylC55E3ToWRDG 6DCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DWD0CNIr96p1Ht1fauOg7/C5bINcBS+2R76iTH9h8PhDPQtHtZ kA6ISglw5a/JaiMf7jJsgTCv71PbsC8cj+YnDfP7wQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZ9Hqvgdl3cwbLcZwm9lfdhgs9thcJlMsMQzXqKXEnltDc/D/fVM/559xGJc+Ulzi8rUbRC2pDjTud6hw4tYds=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:1e94:: with SMTP id 20-v6mr5901056jat.34.1537490141655; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180920132601.uwv2lblcvr4ojtk5@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAHbuEH7jeGLBMH8Yi+_o+o-NvZKmWt4KbtwbP-8XtL0taUCx_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20180920143103.lvg6rmkzqfyjq3fr@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <52399791-9285-bcab-4fcd-3eb0f0a1f64f@gmail.com> <20180920151907.5wxxlccrvcgzjzcz@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0FE3D4B6-CDDC-40A5-AC84-9C9E24278919@vpnc.org> <20180920171706.vemkprtgq2potrkr@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20180920185721.GD68853@isc.org> <20180920201136.dtdw3dcjw663byu4@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B40D702B-CD2D-42F0-91D5-D7B2776C2A2F@fugue.com> <20180920234451.l3kirvilfpb5pvsh@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20180920234451.l3kirvilfpb5pvsh@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:35:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=j_FC-PdPKt-QUSStxhpaCEaALhdjS-UjDCh8KUn6Zmg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: each@isc.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd4d5a057656d191"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TIdZHJUZH_oopS_42w1YEWdh0Do>
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 00:35:46 -0000
My point is that the reference you were making was not an IETF document, and as far as I know nobody has complained about it. This discussion was triggered by actual complaints by actual people, and the terms about which the complaints were made are used in IETF standards; this is why it's a matter of interest. I'm not suggesting that the discussion be limited to those who've been personally affected; in that case I certainly would have no standing to comment. What I'm saying is that this really is a serious discussion that affects real people in meaningful ways, and you seemed to be trivializing it. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:44 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > Ted, > > Your attempt at trying to characterize problematic words with > "hurtfull" is useful. Asking for the discussion to be limited > to people personally affected is not so useful. And trust me, > its not fun to question the effectiveness and efficiency of > well meaning initiatives. > > I brought up "fat" as a well known example of abuse in hostile > work environments that i assume most on this thread could > easier relate to than slavery (fat shaming). Makes it IMHO > easier to imagine how language management can not really > help directly with hostile work environments. > > I really don't think that pythons change can help with any > hostile work environments either. The best benefit i can think of > is relief for the poor teacher in school/college of an affected > country who really does not need a discussion about slavery when > teaching a 101 computer course in python. Nor the support for > playfull passive-aggressive behavior when students start > programming with a a derogatory-rich vocabulary. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:39:58PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > > Do i qualify to demand a rename of > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tree < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tree> > > > if i have an appropriate BMI and feel offended or do i have to work in > > > a Data Center ? > > > > Toerless, let me put it to you this way: are you having a problem at > work that is sufficient that you feel that you would like to report it to > your human resources/personnel department as harassment, but you don't feel > safe in doing so? If so, and if what you are experiencing is being > enabled by some terminology used in the IETF, then what you are saying > would apply. Otherwise you are just wasting our time asking this > question. This is not a Kaffee Klatsch, and we are not talking about this > for fun. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_work_environment < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_work_environment> > > > > -- > --- > tte@cs.fau.de >
- 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