Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Mark Rousell <[e-mail]>]

On 21/09/2018 03:31, Alia Atlas wrote:
> While I do agree with John Levine that there are many additional human
> rights and issues to consider,
> I don't see how one can disregard the origins of "blacklist".

What are the origins? I've used the term for decades in many contexts
but never, ever needed to know or care what its origins are. I still
need to know or care. It's completely and wholly irrelevant to current
usage.

> These don't sound neutral

I just looked at Wikipedia and it states that "The English dramatist
Philip Massinger used the phrase "black list" in his 1639 tragedy The
Unnatural Combat."

I can't say that I see anything there that could or should bother any
reasonable person.

And this rather highlights the fundamental absurdity of this sort of
fretting over words (specifically words that are not directed against
any human being in current industry usage). It doesn't matter in the
slightest what the origin of a word is. Indeed, people often disagree
over origins. All that actually matters is how a word is used in context
now. And, as such, "blacklist" has a useful, practical meaning in the
context of listing things to be avoided. It is completely harmless,
completely non-prejudicial, and completely inoffensive in its contextual
usage.

> and saying it is industry standard is 
> another way of saying "keep out" to those impacted or that they must
> deal with the stereotypes and unpleasant reminders.

You joke, surely. Saying that something is "industry standard" is just
that. There is no "keep out", neither implicit nor explicit. Any such
interpretation is unreasonably self-centred and incorrect. Terminology
is a shorthand that people use to facilitate clear communication,
nothing more and nothing less.

The key point of industry standard terminology is that there are no
"stereotypes and unpleasant reminders". How can there be? Industry
standard terminology is, by its absolutely fundamental nature, not
directed against any individual. It is about technology, about things,
not people. To make it about people is to misinterpret it.

>  WE invent what becomes industry standard terminology - and  given
> that the next challenge is growing the Internet to the next
> billion people, whom will come from different cultures, countries, and
> backgrounds - taking a few moments for a descriptive and thoughtful
> term isn't a lot to ask.

I agree. But that's no reason to uninvent historical terms that have
established, clear, industry meaning. Furthermore, just as we wish to
take the Internet to new people, it is only reasonable that those new
people expand their horizons to accept what was there before them. I had
to do this, other people had to do this, and it is only reasonable to
expect other people to do the very same thing.

> Please consider if you have ever had a term or terminology that
> disturbs or bothers you.

No, I haven't. When I approach a new area of knowledge, I accept that it
brings its own terminology. I am adult enough to not take any of it
personally.

Of course, if people say something personal then that's different. But
genuinely industry terminology can never be personal.

> Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" -
> each use serves to remind women that they are the
> exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter.

"Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather
annoying and jarring phrase where I am) are not industry standard
terminology.

> Being inclusive is about being welcoming and not merely not
> deliberately hostile.

That's an interesting view. To my mind, being "inclusive" is all about
allowing *everyone* to join in on their own terms. When I say "everyone"
I meant that: It applies as much to those who have have already joined
in as well as newcomers. As such, there is no good reason to dismiss
clearly understood industry standard terminology. Such terminology is,
by its fundamental nature, neutral. It shuts no one out unless they
*choose* to be shut out for artificial reasons. Why should established
and well understood terminology be changed just to suit a minority of
newcomers who cannot or will not adapt? I think that would be
unreasonable and would fail the inclusiveness test by alienating those
who have already adapted. Remember, inclusiveness is for everyone, not
just newcomers.

> To grow the technical community in diversity and
> including many viewpoints to handle new technical challenges as more
> folks join the Internet, this matters.

Terminology is just terminology. It does not any in genuine way
whatsoever preclude new people or new viewpoints. It just allows
everyone, old and new, to communicate clearly in a neutral manner that
is not prejudicial against anyone.


-- 
Mark Rousell