Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-08-09, at 18:28, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > This is a problem that the IETF really needs to solve itself.
> 
> While I agree with that, I also think there might be some help out there that we might avail ourselves of ??? maybe not so much in other SDOs, but in professional organizations such as ACM.
> 
> I just know some of us (me included) can???t help with this, for the same reasons that Baudis gives for his choice of the term ???master??? for the main Git branch in 2005 [1].

> It???s your language, ...

Who is "your" ? Anybody who learned (american ?) english before the age of 6 ?

Btw.: I disagree. Any choices beyond ubiquitously recognized reasonably
good american english is probably an IETF community choice, and not
one of a subset defined by upbringing.

In reality, i think the policies and how to interpret them will simply be
 made by a combination of IETF leadership the minority that is able to
most cohesively voice their opinion. Aka: the usual IETF min/max way:
minimum effort by the people with privilege vs. maximum effort by
others to overturn those decisions.

Cheers
    Toerless

> and those of us who have acquired very different connotations for terms (through the technical context they learned the language in, and through different connotations of the equivalent word in their native languages) will need some guidance.  So I???m very skeptical with throwing back the ball to the authors.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave