Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

Skickat från min iPad

> 5 apr. 2021 kl. 22:31 skrev Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>:
> 
>>  This whole exercise is mere posture.  It reeks of "Yes minister" logic,
>   we must do something about injustice, this is something, therefore we
>   must do it.
> 
> Many of us feel it is more like: we need to be more inclusive, this is an easy first step, let us do it. Changing the language to be more inclusive conveys a better impression, and might change people's attitudes.  Some people will summarize this with the term "virtue signalling," often in an attempt to be dismissive. I'm okay with that, my response is "yes, we are trying to be virtuous and this is a first step."

Personally I think one should walk the walk first and then the talk takes care of itself ... but what the heck do I know. 

Virtue signaling is often dismissed not because "virtue is bad" but because it tends to lazily replace doing good in actuality. I understand specs is what we have in the IETF and therefore it is tempting to whack at that nail... I just think there are better ways if we really want to be more inclusive.

Leif