Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 6F62B3A0BEB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mou8v4tOtuXt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (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 A94EC3A0BE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id o8so8263404wmh.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VQ3hxngEX+MUQFbVmR7VgRr/JEYBd4MBwOcTZjIyovA=; b=Gn61pEe6BJAgl3P1DU4MW5R0kmvbgFcNvBnI5Yj0oYHvjK21vquNTEwL9DNQiXM46P 8xanOi5KBVYOwRRyTWmZK/zIXE4nTTug7jeTZWRtoYnFyvYNFg1f5/RPVUBTzDxRwQXg 21W0DQildVrHD0aKpzo8eRftvvHdD65E7+RDI96yySoomRgfxyfhHKetQhjDkDZa4zjk 4S8p3pFBAKvgEWpWKdYbbyQ0bEmBQruzviY9rtRwsn2UiqfTJQ9DfcYT+xFSQYeINAtE rLCr3jo7G42brqBVsG1NFrb416F+nQXFflXGatW0fLAZbFL1Tkdmaws1dbE99O2n2ul7 NCZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=VQ3hxngEX+MUQFbVmR7VgRr/JEYBd4MBwOcTZjIyovA=; b=AwTb3Fsh/SkO9Ii/pL7XqlmDWMlEwBe0DExYqt196hepaEa/D0R3jfRVufb2T9J86n AP4OZ2OHBQLeJNoiO4lnqA+T3b5qmb8Y2Ib+pyDpBTv9OqNuieSN/gt/1i2eCfGyiRAD kP8ln27FR1e0gmZZy692WvqIGcBmLPwmOMZnxXRTalj4EV4EoORUKwemGo59pykSYQ/B LZEIyvWB40hkTyDjJYpwBNQUK9RBXM7L2H3y7tKxqcIyMVSTf8JzgemzZMVRwlv95mAD poZBCmYYVWmjIbSBkbTVWIEXstlcK04GWfq2xMt5edOl5MsUlSoK9ZCcrNgHRmAf+GRq 0Vlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HcgO9Q/el+gXNj3crnNZiJrA6AjYHD3A4sgLRdIWEPpYaQpbI 5+Uflx6hg34HjCwjM0j5gsw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwVo1Ts5MZZBlBuG5LrCanh05MUSg6K98apAmfNC+r5dA891Uj10YJ030TPpWzfgLey7z/5A==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b489:: with SMTP id d131mr1484049wmf.114.1595603557185; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:10bd:3bd:352f:a115]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm2108109wru.81.2020.07.24.08.12.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C9DB3CF0-0274-4982-ABAB-877BF6842785@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A9E668F-67E9-4464-8F65-355A0E9300CF"
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 16:12:34 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20200724081624.GA23120@nic.fr>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <D208C070-48ED-4878-AB2E-4671C2AC649A@gmail.com> <2c018854-bfc1-e014-6e5d-2ed799a6a602@gmail.com> <20200724081624.GA23120@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sgr0dCUl8YGn2lsIHTrMjdq4b_4>
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 15:12:40 -0000


> On 24 Jul 2020, at 09:16, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 02:34:18PM +1200,
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote 
> a message of 10 lines which said:
> 
>> Since you ask, the answer seems obvious: its name is "Master Clock"
>> so there's nothing else you can call it. "Master" on its own is here
>> to stay, anyway; in some contexts the proposed alternatives (like
>> "main") simply don't work. That's why most of the advice to authors
>> cannot be binary; we can't resolve this just with a blocklist
>> approach.
> 
> And this is also why it cannot be implemented in tools. Even the best
> AI cannot know if the use of a word like master is oppressive or not.

.. and of course why it cannot be properly  litigated against in an RFC.

The OED defines it as 
†a.  gen. A person (predominantly, a man) having authority, direction or control over the action of another or others; a director, leader, chief, commander; a ruler, governor. Obsolete(archaic in later use).

And when we use it technically we are using it in the same sense but applied between automatons that feel no slight.

The word goes back to old English but the first quotes use in the OED in the modern spellings is in the King James Bible (1611), so I imagine that it unlikely to be expunged from common English any time soon.

The first use in conjunction with slavery seems to be 1833 so it is a much more recent definition.

If you look overall with the OED entry the context in which the authors of the draft raise the term is relatively infrequent, with most associations seemingly relatively benign.

FWIW the first technical reference to master-slave seems to be in 1952 and in reference to the a system for the manipulation of irradiated items rather than computers.

The first technical introduction of master-slave I had was the context of a J-K flip-flop where it describes the relationship extremely well. The master takes arbitrary action and the slave has no choice but to follow or very occasionally rebel (metastability is is a big problem in flip-flops) so in many ways the term is a perfect fit. What is the new standard term in that context?

- Stewart