IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 C50FB3A0F3A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uj11dKZKifMx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BFDD3A0EE7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1f7:8ca5:7f63:e5ff:a34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B024F280CE5; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:55:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <1F96C8957A277E92E45985B6@PSB> <20200728155448.GD3100@localhost>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <679b8c21-7f65-6a60-b332-405ef3cdde1a@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:50 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200728155448.GD3100@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ydWuBOfs3Tb6m0pWoLr0zxT7gkU>
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:56:11 -0000

On 28/7/20 12:54, Nico Williams wrote:
[....]
> 
>> (3) We are an international community with aspirations to be
>> even more so.   That may imply that a term or acronym that is
>> neutral or otherwise acceptable in English may be offensive,
>> oppressive, or exclusionary when translated or transliterated
>> into another language.  We should probably be aware of that too.
> 
> There are limits to how sensitive we can be to issues we're not aware
> of.  I.e., we depend on reviewers to tell us about the issues they are
> aware of.  Which brings us back to your point about banned word lists
> not possibly being sufficient.

Part of the issue is, I guess, that much needs to be second-guessed, 
because virtually all the communities that would find the aforementioned 
language to be offensive are under-represented here (if at all represented).

Maybe if one were to try to address the underlying problem 
(inclusiveness), any issues related to language would be solved as a 
side-effect?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email