Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Barbara,

> On Jul 29, 2020, at 8:33 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Not replying to any particular email, but to the general discussion...
> 
> It seems to me that IETF isn't in a good position to natively determine what words are "problematic". So what I think would be good would be to have a list of words and phrases that external communities (e.g., governments, universities, corporations) are either forbidding or recommending against. Include a reference to the external community's web page where they discuss this. RECOMMEND not using words in this list. Allow anyone to suggest having something added to the list; suggestion must include the reference. Have a small team that vets the request (makes sure the reference works and judges whether the referenced community reflects a community that IETF should consider reflecting -- which is still a judgment call, but I think identifying whether a community is (or should be) important to IETF members is easier than judging whether someone who doesn't share your experiences might be offended by a word or phrase) and decides whether or not to add it to the list. An existing team, like the Ombudsteam, might be tasked with this.
> 
> The RFC Editor doesn't need to police the use of these words. Allow for IETF community self-policing to decide whether a WG or independent stream author really want to use a word or phrase, given its presence on this list.
> 
> For example, consider Apple as a reasonable reference.
> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=1o9zxsxl
> 
> Specifically, for "master/slave" or "blacklist/whitelist", look at
> https://help.apple.com/applestyleguide/#/apsg72b28652 and go to master/slave or blacklist/whitelist in the alphabetical list

Thanks for the pointers, these are quite good in my view.

Bob