Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 8/7/20 7:59 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>   *   Call them "professionally wounded" or "snowflakes" if you want,
>     but the road this leads down is toward a senescent, obsolescent,
>     irrelevant IETF.  People have better things to do with their time
>     than engage with an organization that doesn't care about them.
>
> Agreed.  I don’t think Dan or Ohta-san are going to stop contributing 
> if we stop using a few words. If I’m wrong, I’m sure they’ll let us 
> know. But we have much anecdotal evidence that our conversations, and 
> some of our documents, cause problems for people.
>

   Speaking for myself, I won't stop contributing until something or someone
stops me and this isn't going to stop me. I don't think I have used 
"master-slave"
in a draft or RFC but I have used the term "master key". And while I 
know no one
is demanding that term be changed _right now_ it's only a matter of time.

   People on the other side (from me) of this discussion like to talk about
how other groups and organizations have taken steps to address these
"problematic words" and so we should consider doing it too. So let me alert
you to another organization that has gone down this path:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/realtors-master-bedroom-bathroom-terminology/

Yes, it's not a "master bathroom" anymore, that's problematic. It's also
patently ridiculous! And that, I fear, is where we will be going.

Realtors: "we will no longer say 'master bathroom'"
IETF: "hold my beer!"

>   * In other words, the pure focus on one side of the risk equation is
>     causing the consequence -- unintended or not -- of driving away
>     new participants.  Which implies to me that we should let up on
>     that and take into account the effects we have on other people --
>     unintended or not.
>
> I’ll go further. I believe this is a direct attempt to stop any 
> forward progress.  Not changing things is their goal after all.
>

   I take issue with your mischaracterization of my statements. I am trying
to stop people from causing harm. In my view they are acting with the best
of intentions but the result will be unintended harm.

   Referring to one's policy preferences as "progress" and that anyone 
opposed
must therefore resist "progress" is a popular but lame rhetorical device.
There is no arc of history bending anywhere. We're all just sitting on this
rock flying through space trying to get along. Please give me the benefit
of the doubt that I want things to be better and I want progress just like
you do, we just disagree on how to get there.

   Dan.