Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

The games have International Masters and Grandmasters...
some of whom are female, some of whom are feminists, some of whom are...


Lloyd [e-mail]

On Sunday, August 9, 2020, 19:07, Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]> wrote:

I don’t mean to be pedantic but I also wonder what is going to happen once this ideology hits the chess, Go (the board game) and Othello communities. These communities are centered around “black” and “white” pieces that quite literally fight for “domination” and “control” of a board in a zero-sum game.

I hope I’m not giving anyone ideas here!

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 9 Aug 2020, at 10:43 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 02:04:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> 
>>> individual drafts.  "Master secret" is, of course, used quite
>>> heavily in TLS and TLS-related documents as one example of non-DNS
>>> use.
>> 
>> I have long avoided "master/slave" in my work (except in open source
>> projects where the use predated my involvement and is baked into
>> interfaces).  However, how is "master secret" possibly offensive when
>> there are no "slave secrets"?  Assume I'm not a native English speaker
>> (I'm not).
> 
> Barring sophistry, it is no more offensive, than a master key for a
> physical lock, a Master's degree, a master crafsman (rather than a
> novice or an apprentice), mastering a skill, ...
> 
> The use of "master secret" in TLS is plainly (again barring sophistry)
> beyond reproach.  It is only when "master mumble" is used in constrast
> to "slave mumble", that one might practice restraint in using the former
> in order to avoid also then using or evoking the latter.
> 
> Since "master nameserver" and "secondary nameserver" are not a natural
> pairing, and since in this case "primary" and "secondary" work equally
> well or better, long before this thread, I've already been using primary
> and secondary "nameserver" for many years, not because the older terms
> are plainly offensive, but because the newer ones are a better fit.
> 
> But switching from nameservers to data, the primary nameserver for a
> domain hosts its "master zone file", and this a more apt description
> than "primary zone file" because there's not another managed zone file
> for the domain playing a secondary role.  The copies of the "master zone
> file" on secondary servers are "slave" (or perhaps "replica") copies.
> 
> There are only so many linguistic contortions one should have to go
> through to address rather marginal gains.  After all, it isn't as though
> the word "slave" has fallen out of use in polite company.  We still talk
> about slavery past and present, using that word and not some euphemism.
> 
> There's reason to not use it frivolously, or when better alternatives
> abound, but there's also no reason to avoid its legitimate use when the
> alternatives are worse.
> 
> We can and should be expected to use good judgement, and be polite in
> listening to and giving feedback.
> 
> -- 
>    Viktor.
>