Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 29/07/2020 11:25, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> I would let authors express their thoughts as they think best, and leave the decision of what words to rephrase with the RFC Editors.
>
> They are our specialist in the English language, they have good judgement on appropriateness, and they have a good understanding of internal and external continuity of expression.
>
> As to this draft I would drop it as it is really unnecessary given that what I describe is what I think the RFC Editors would do anyway.

Yes.  This started with the IESG making a statement that they were 
looking for a framework going forward.

My message to the IESG is no, do not do that.  Leave it to the RFC Editor.

Tom Petch

> Stewart
>
>> On 28 Jul 2020, at 18:48, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Masataka-san, I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to
>> understand the details of your objection and what you would like done
>> about it.  Please help me.
>>
>> I understand and agree that whether certain words and phrases are or
>> aren't offensive is very much a cultural issue.  It's clear that any
>> plea that we stop using certain terms will necessarily be culturally
>> dependent, and, thus <somewhere>-centric.  When people from the U.S.
>> make such requests, they are bound to be U.S.-centric, and others in
>> this conversation have given examples of things that might be
>> bothersome to people from their cultures.
>>
>> What I don't understand, and need to ask, are these:
>>
>> - Do you think that, in general, it might be reasonable to avoid using
>> certain words and phrases because a significantly large group of
>> people find them offensive or exclusionary?  Or do you think that it
>> is not reasonable to ask people to do that?
>>
>> - How does your answer to the above question lead you into a
>> recommendation about what to do with this situation in general?
>>
>> - What would you want the IETF community to do with respect to the
>> Internet draft in question: To expand it to include other terms,
>> making it less U.S.-centric?  To change the explanation to make that
>> less U.S.-centric?  To abandon the draft because any version of it
>> would be too focused on one culture, and it can't be made inclusive
>> enough?  Something else?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Barry
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:11 AM Masataka Ohta
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Christian Hopps wrote:
>>>
>>>> The document actually talks to these points with some references.
>>>
>>> I'm saying the document and the references are all too
>>> much US centric ignoring both the original and established
>>> meaning of "slave".
>>>
>>> As
>>>
>>>         https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
>>>
>>>         originally "Slav"
>>>
>>>         Grose's dictionary (1785) has under Negroe "A
>>>         black-a-moor; figuratively used for a slave,"
>>>         without regard to race.
>>>
>>> it should be OK to stop using "Negroe", but not "slave",
>>> which are originally for Slav, whites.
>>>
>>>                                         Masataka Ohta