Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

And you think this discussion isn’t exclusionary?

O. 

> On 24 Jul 2020, at 21:49, Joseph Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, John,
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2020, at 8:26 AM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>> There may be better alternatives, such as canonical. 
>>> 
>>> "Canonical" applies in some circumstances but not always.
>> 
>> The historical meaning of "Canonical" is that something is part of the
>> canon of Christian scripture. It by implication excludes people from
>> other cultural backgrounds.
> 
> It originates from a word that meant “rod” (as a measuring device). As with many of these words, it has many meanings and inferences that evolved since; the use of the term as generic “standard of measure” goes back to the 1400s; the most recent new meaning is “from the approved list of authors” of a body of work.
> 
> But the question is not just the origin or even how many current meanings a term has; it’s whether others consider its use exclusionary. 
> 
> So far, I am not aware that the term “canonical” has that exclusionary sense. To date, the only examples I’ve seen actually use the terms canon and canonical in discussions about the ways in which sets of documents (canon) or exemplars (canonical) are themselves exclusionary.
> 
> HOWEVER, if we hear “social consensus” (i.e., not just those having this discussion, but examples outside the IETF) where this term is considered problematic, I will add it to my list of terms to avoid happily.
> 
> Joe