IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Some more thoughts about language and what to do next

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@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 61DB33A09F7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 zQOgAY-ymaGb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (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 E13383A0A08 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id t6so2250771pjr.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I4tfL482Fzj8QO97AANouvnMVyQJyY7OozZPP1tzwfQ=; b=svKo1/uZTg0eMralvuaEC1JqpiyngASVv03qZIaMwk7JfiALpQYwitLK8ixsotufpl Xqoi+/u80kxkfLgGHxphVyYVedj3DxDcxFxrYomTU1JimiAHJ/eHr7BYKKoQVJOplBgH m9KPZP/AgTwOehAEHV12dm3sIxkwCxcxSg2mmZJXxPZEkE9r5HpbaYkAW/jQ48NoZyle fz0O+jiXV0oAzFVSSrNnmiikRJmHSWTyp/5QuFmy4c9eQvIcRnqlR3t9nLrmG3tcIKGW 1znvwulqIRKcHqWIPa6B9a0VSLLBDrqZlFQX2c6CRjosU+IK4uLdAA2c12OqV+1sKCKI gxkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I4tfL482Fzj8QO97AANouvnMVyQJyY7OozZPP1tzwfQ=; b=DF6C5fPydbVGrfHeLO4U0gKfEE75nZ9UkMBkNMo18QTvGUMPXbz634bbNk44m1Wzru LM+8KRHAASGROrnjGH3ts+6xotv02sNVD8SiLDafT4V36yW94NGSgVmvPAGg12sLsDmu vFIBBU5bMB8FK6515Et6TBxrrZ2w65kJELJcyZVLWIfRRL+36Sg9HlBP3Ly/iCBQqDjL B4ymL/OG7i+IGLkaR8hbOJ0hsjJmqDmrmEOCx7vc4fnnl8iFmrHcCaR4JcIPr2q3EFlF GBx1jZYVeYTcXDGh7GowYFEkwd4sDzk3/eZxdozmeXIhPT9//uqLdjio96j0cKiy/k4m Mnrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BiVJWAls6haKqAxKz+Dg+zjVgmaCUTe++/0YLa7Pm9zdFLXGA e6mXnrgC8brmdgy+LXPmIILYaRFV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUGIg3+idaKRRo+do4+xtrNQZMewQHh/LM92fiXpz1BIfTJvnn0gZTURSW8K8DHYJFv3CZjA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d249:: with SMTP id o9mr1465115pjw.233.1596154031952; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aspen.local (63-140-73-54-rb1.jnu.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.73.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm7812690pfq.15.2020.07.30.17.07.10 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Some more thoughts about language and what to do next
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <09474801-7189-4C01-8242-163454C3E936@cisco.com> <be502d5b-7307-460c-a8ca-aa2a897e7bc2@dogfood.fastmail.com> <CAChr6SyGTJUh3mrrsCauk8SEcin0inYCmOKTzgJzeuMLyUvKXg@mail.gmail.com> <20200730221738.GP3100@localhost>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01197c0b-cbe7-50e5-3e4c-da8d596ef85f@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:07:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200730221738.GP3100@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z1g_KLZEwP3a0erAHM3ATNvdK6M>
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, 31 Jul 2020 00:07:33 -0000

I think there are two different things under discussion: 1) language
used in our documents, and 2) language used in our discussions, both
online and off.  draft-knodel is very clear that it's the former that's
in scope, stating in the abstract:

   This document argues for moving away from specific language
   conventions used by RFC authors and RFC Editors in order to encourage
   inclusive terminology in the ongoing RFC series.

I am not overly concerned about colloquialisms making it through working
group last call, let alone through the RFC Editor process.  So, while
whether or not "folks" and similar are going to be alienating is an
interesting and likely worthwhile discussion to have, it's outside the
scope of this particular document.

Melinda

[on reread, aside from other issues draft-knodel is a little squishy
about whether it's arguing for change or specifying those changes,
which is probably a minor point but wouldn't be much effort to
clarify]

-- 
Melinda Shore
melinda.shore@gmail.com

Software longa, hardware brevis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email