IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 24 July 2020 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.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 29B2E3A0983 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 fKPbZq64DOVd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 092143A0980 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:ad81:647d:776d:b165] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:ad81:647d:776d:b165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACFC16054EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:32:41 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1595593961; bh=qcC/OO+mIYkI0brdXrJlQXCAEwL5d7zbafJAqYqIKPs=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To; b=FTE3TRYfjtUZXdg5GY4QgLzu+TBdeSgmGOIyhzLm8y6Wi6M37y4Lxipr5HtMeG2VB tVYMsz6Z9h63e2ooZQGwYhoeEZg9WdST83eBItQai2OLJGGqHs5bDWjeGSM2srjl7I lBGuoLgbqzq/eU4Up7uCOveKlvXGhQVVQnCBo+cA=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F778437-F6E8-404C-8B23-F08504EFF727"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:32:41 +0300
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <E90735A0-90B4-4855-BCE1-3F1A70B405F8@eggert.org>
X-MailScanner-ID: ACFC16054EC.A58CC
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qdzbQ3HKsKXZTH84nCvr2JtUUL0>
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 12:33:14 -0000

Hi,

I've been reading this thread, and don't understand how this IESG statement is controversial.

Many of us learned in recent years that some terminology and language that's been used in the past alienates or is otherwise objectionable to a part of our community. Alternative terms readily exist, sometimes even offering a more precise meaning. How is it not the right thing to simply start using these alternative terms when we can?

Sure, an occasional change in terminology is only a small step. But it's still moving us in the right direction, and costs us practically nothing.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email