IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 24 July 2020 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 760753A0CBA; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 o7OAASHygFfb; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421E63A0CA5; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90D7B60856; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <34CF64D6-10F3-4F45-B592-FA14C911DB0B@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D0EB5A1-94D9-41DA-83D1-B8B681C73484"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 04:51:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e7956fd8-2639-3df6-9539-0dd483cafa25@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com>, IETF Best Practices <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
References: <933ce8b4-78a5-76bf-55c3-7c5694faffbb@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <267BCA35-3A3F-440B-9F5F-2C818D5AE71A@icloud.com> <e7956fd8-2639-3df6-9539-0dd483cafa25@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/keBVFkuNP4ypF2Bt6Cp7nU3dn3I>
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:51:41 -0000

It is bad b/c it has an actual and real impact on people today, it get's in the way of them being able to work/create most efficiently, it contributes to people not even going into technical fields.

The document actually talks to these points with some references.

Just b/c we have done things one way in the past does not mean we shouldn't strive to do better in the future.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Jul 24, 2020, at 2:54 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Carrick Bartle wrote:
> 
>> I think we can all agree that slavery is bad, right?
>> So why should we even allude to it in technical documents?
> 
> That is not a valid argument against some terminology,
> especially because it should have been agreed so at
> the time when the term of "master slave" was originally
> coined.
> 
> That is, we have long established agreement to use words
> to be considered bad by many for technical terms.
> 
> 					Masataka Ohta
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email