IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 10 August 2020 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 14AC93A12B0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:02:12 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 upqSmbf4FXHR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brown.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (brown.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB5F13A12AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ADE121573; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a76.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-5-126.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.5.126]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6F98D1215D2; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a76.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:02:09 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Towering-Trade: 28be596a3f8ba30d_1597017729728_2092462781
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1597017729728:1590720320
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1597017729728
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a76.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a76.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D1EB23B0; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=NUVQXgF3RX55tO WOTY6Q57tCu3Y=; b=ZmTZjlMcGKKuDmg8ieg++4iups1wyMAHFRuHLkLDJjOhol mFHNRRyw4M0+0ElKiJJdans8dkg8xDix1ZjoDsXeARSOr+XhOPnONLFeQK66ukND kQWsYUYhoPtaRHpE22up0cnaRDapQ9Axd64amQnZkevgsGB7GlY59JCVJna1M=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a76.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 228D2B23B3; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 19:02:04 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a76
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Message-ID: <20200810000203.GD3100@localhost>
References: <005afe55-7c2c-a0a6-e66f-4513e006ab42@gmail.com> <20200809070448.GY3100@localhost> <20200809084341.GW40202@straasha.imrryr.org> <196BA5B1-92B6-4EC4-897E-F5C14E12647D@symbolic.software> <1783494857.1475756.1596964788830@mail.yahoo.com> <76FAC452-8C73-498E-920E-4A7E9D4A4E00@akamai.com> <20200809175214.GA3100@localhost> <58FA43EB-A679-46A1-87FB-2853FD85D388@akamai.com> <ce51c2bd-5e59-6723-6204-d4eb70d86c93@lounge.org> <2E7560CF-2836-446F-9552-096BD9A185AC@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2E7560CF-2836-446F-9552-096BD9A185AC@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrkeejgddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtkeethfeuteeviefgfeegjeetjedvhfehgfdvtdefueejheelgeeuhffghffgnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eXLeQV1tGC00CAw3i6AiM9MQ-6Y>
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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:02:12 -0000

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 11:34:42PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > What is the criteria you have for deciding whether a word is
> > "exclusionary"?
> 
> We haven't even come to consensus that *anything* can be.  This
> question is premature.

You should have kept more of the context.  Dan was responding to your
"[i]f, however, it turns out that solitary use of the word master is
exclusionary, then...".  With that context present, Dan's is a fair
question.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email