IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 05 April 2021 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 9EB983A24B4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 ljv27WJeXfQt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADA13A24B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.175.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 135JVedD023396 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1617651112; x=1617737512; i=@elandsys.com; bh=NTUSvK8EGDCaw2TAtKtVeabXJZ++9Cu7AHQf/90U3+g=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=GJibpeh5F1aOjv+hLQK74tg+POq0pEOpnLE8FMRNW2+aH3W045Nu1r7ugOuJutWfi K5TbnmlCW1B+rpy83e+5/feRQNmI6TJrji7xfphk6dCdcR2K7XDHNGF683sbquM10j sKQN9FkYVyivElq3XNEgo1F/RcblTv4VwvmxM5+s=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210405001419.0ddee7b8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:51:08 -0700
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
In-Reply-To: <tslpmzctgoi.fsf@suchdamage.org>
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu> <1e4feea2-2c81-b31a-04e3-d4c9a4adbaf7@lounge.org> <20210402163230.GH79563@kduck.mit.edu> <4c82de79-1e40-2eed-909b-8a288284393d@lounge.org> <439a33c9-5791-4c90-76a3-54aab828a37d@network-heretics.com> <5C955F3B-2EE7-43DD-85BA-DA1C1CF353F1@tzi.org> <7b3ba302-ec36-eb8d-7461-861a0b6651ac@network-heretics.com> <0dca7a0d-d51e-4c67-cc96-a44de0141480@gmail.com> <9c369a34-d47c-3af0-9793-8342f5f6ec63@network-heretics.com> <c613095d-f0b4-8df7-e703-d1b3c52bffc5@gmail.com> <tslpmzctgoi.fsf@suchdamage.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xuH_3xcsGPrrIjXaNUGdAHxgvms>
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: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:32:04 -0000

Hi Sam,
At 04:22 PM 02-04-2021, Sam Hartman wrote:
>Might I suggest an alternative way to look at this?
>I've found that talking about things in terms of offense gets free
>speech advocates (including to some extent myself) upset, and takes us
>one step further away from being able to think about the impact of our
>words.

[snip]

>Now let us come to "A Modest Proposal."
>This is not the first time that satirical essay has come up in the IETF
>context.
>Ted Hardie used it a couple of times I can remember, and I don't think
>he was the first in my history in the IETF.
>And yet several of those times, specific people in our community spoke
>up and said that because of their background, they felt excluded, hurt,
>or offended by that particular reference.

That approach was used on the mailing list many years ago.  From what 
I remember, it was not by Ted.  The objective was to bring a 
significant problem to the attention of other IETF participants.  I 
doubt that it was intended to offend a particular group of 
participants in those days.

The discussion is, on one hand, about freedom of expression, and on 
the other hand, which IETF Contributions can be published on the IETF 
web site.  There are similar discussions in other places [1][2].  At 
the individual level, the author of one of the drafts stated that 
dissenting viewpoints were ignored and that his intention was to put 
his dissent on record.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-parliament-twitter-canada-1.5892592
2. There is an on-going debate about Section 230, a U.S. law which is 
applicable to the LLC.  There is some information about that law at 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/section-230-the-internet-law-politicians-love-to-hate-explained/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email