Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 19:30 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 2BC49130DD9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 o30x-evB804x for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (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 057D3130DD4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id c126-v6so6317852qkd.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=0FdXzpVw5MXf3FQGoWziYu5KhMqzzAu9oTfkseAi9vM=; b=Bv04IxAptj1BsgbP4Av/ZIXNldVgJfR8ZcD6piSLqSoIQE/k7EOsQEGEtEidcZpQ7q wrJkI/FIjfWjnFY2w8g3Se1QbbfZt1lngON7ecc/1WD8F0Bp1QIDHMhTnxLspYzaVX3j OQIF6DdR63sAOViq6V9t/UXJhLQHw1r8ADmohxgLfUF68EVnfBUH+ySt3GPVTjwzEuD/ QVFJsL5zgbyICCgJhVO4WMGJox4XxKYk/NmYOU+b+Yb6arm+Albzt3E5VSO0genNKKvY +puCY7HBpA2hNszLSrbVWYyOx6DSeunyYCS/R8++W5HKu2vdAsZmm3GRHV4MDOwh6/mA nNrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=0FdXzpVw5MXf3FQGoWziYu5KhMqzzAu9oTfkseAi9vM=; b=mLfzfqAmVWqBaQZU6Plk/CB2A4TTa+C1s51aLJHNycZ/+NkLtKs6gFm0ZW9q+xDfQv bAmqD7LN9BB4ueyXlg2hbPFUbc+Jq+ydI8TO8lecMDQo/Iu1HEXPORODX5EKw5dXEdrK QB4bjB844ksBfHsYukAH4ojlG1Be0IfQTCLpNEBQ0U8RCOY67nBbFiyQbipZ/RBQhjj7 poFeU7LJSCpzTaTXlTC94JB5U+zLU4qe+ACjoBr5y7mTVqBJHCAq6mWBnQBMtK54KfYB oQ4AK4FY7t0zKCXqv6LiDKeoIcfc4YAndRmthyKsr48idgCR3g+47O9sqqCM783/EIr7 /ccw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojg2sB4Y3MSALgGmfAe4WMwlNs01xgYnplSydJQh7JmQItrP3t/ RTG0aTGi+MDGCnnI5J3SNOdAzQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZv2cP8lcwuyoWFU99p0M1EaZzrTvQCDbXTpVtQ+CcOMwrTuAj6r9hROyWz0KnPJ5vY1RuEOA==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3043:: with SMTP id 61-v6mr4614442qte.328.1537471853017; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.100.12] (c-73-167-89-221.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.89.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 62-v6sm3757658qkw.72.2018.09.20.12.30.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <B6830BC5-ACB1-4BF8-8EDB-AD14FCA62CE1@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1505E63E-A3D1-4970-A34D-DAFC7B43CF96"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:30:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8EF9ACE5-7D4C-4511-B9B0-FDAE121FF2B6@tzi.org>
Cc: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, ietf@ietf.org
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com> <c755471a7f744fdd958759c6c5001147@exchange02.office.nic.se> <20180920170939.GA68853@isc.org> <968547d5-7e96-5c31-69a3-20456baccf1a@comcast.net> <8EF9ACE5-7D4C-4511-B9B0-FDAE121FF2B6@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fJnLvXrwW0IwY4nmDuE7CPnzitk>
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:30:57 -0000
On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > Just in case people don’t know, I’m (very mildly) offended if someone calls me (or any other human) a “person”, except of course for those who are just that. I think that there's a tremendous lack of clarity about what's being discussed here that is worth stating more explicitly. The issue is not that someone might get offended. It's impossible to never give offense. Nobody is proposing, as far as I know, that the IETF enforce some set of rules intended to produce this impossible result. The issue is also not "politics," unless you think the wish not to have to work in a hostile work environment is political. What we are talking about is something different. Consider this: there are words in the modern vernacular the use of which is actually hurtful, and not merely offensive. The reason it's hurtful is because it causes an individual sensitized to the use of that word to revisit an ongoing oppression under which that person is suffering. People who enjoy engaging in such oppression may use these words in a professional context in the hopes of creating suffering for their co-worker who is part of an oppressed group. An example of this would be the use of the "n-word" or the use of the "c-word." (If you don't know what I'm talking about, please ask me privately and not here on the list). There are contexts in which the use of these words is acceptable, but I think most if not all people here would agree that there is never a time where these words should be used either in IETF discussions or in IETF standards. So that's the extreme. Then there are words for which there isn't any such association. For example, I don't think we are in any danger of having to redact the word "packet" from any RFCs. So those are two extremes to think of. Now of course, the set of terms that are on the bad extreme varies from country to country and from language to language. RFCs are in English, so we can somewhat ignore the language, although there might be cases where a perfectly fine english word means something in another language that sends it over to the bad extreme. I think, and of course I may be wrong, that terms like "blackballed," "blacklist," "whitelist," and so on, are probably not down at the bad end of the spectrum, although I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong, since I am not an affected party. But words like "master" and "slave," particularly when used together, definitely seem to be at least toward the bad end of the continuum, and definitely not at the okay end where words like "packet" live. So the question we ought to be talking about is whether there are words that we habitually use in the IETF that might now, or might in the future, be considered to be as abusive as the n-word and the c-word, or might be used in that way. If we have reason to believe that such words are in use, it would be wise for us to find different words to use. This will save us trouble in the long run. Arguing that we ought not to have to change our use of such words because they are understood to have some non-abusive meaning misses the point; there may have been a time when discrimination against the affected population was so pervasive that there was nobody to complain about the problem, or nobody who could safely complain about it. And for those not in the affected population, it had no loaded meaning and therefore seemed like a perfectly reasonable metaphor to use. That pre-existing and blameless motivation does not make it okay to continue using the term now, assuming that we care to address the known problems of non-inclusiveness in our profession.
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel