IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Sun, 09 August 2020 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 04E3D3A0C0A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-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 bjprqtuwQsNO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2191F3A0B78 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net (cpe-76-176-14-122.san.res.rr.com [76.176.14.122]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.8 #2433) with ESMTP id <0QET1PUU0M5C9N@wwwlocal.goatley.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:48:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from thinny.local ([69.12.173.8]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #2433) with ESMTPSA id <0QET00F9DMHZK4@trixy.bergandi.net> for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net ([69.12.173.8] EXTERNAL) (EHLO thinny.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:56:24 -0700
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:48:46 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
In-reply-to: <2E7560CF-2836-446F-9552-096BD9A185AC@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <11e1aa04-e41f-acdd-8538-41d912802bc7@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=69.12.173.8)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net [69.12.173.8] (EHLO thinny.local)
References: <60160A936BE682CEDE0704E1@PSB> <20200809053037.GV3100@localhost> <5c768c35-edb6-0180-737e-fa0c78cb971d@gmail.com> <20200809063805.GX3100@localhost> <005afe55-7c2c-a0a6-e66f-4513e006ab42@gmail.com> <20200809070448.GY3100@localhost> <20200809084341.GW40202@straasha.imrryr.org> <196BA5B1-92B6-4EC4-897E-F5C14E12647D@symbolic.software> <1783494857.1475756.1596964788830@mail.yahoo.com> <76FAC452-8C73-498E-920E-4A7E9D4A4E00@akamai.com> <20200809175214.GA3100@localhost> <58FA43EB-A679-46A1-87FB-2853FD85D388@akamai.com> <ce51c2bd-5e59-6723-6204-d4eb70d86c93@lounge.org> <2E7560CF-2836-446F-9552-096BD9A185AC@akamai.com>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [200808b] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zWeDzisCAdv9k7TTa-pMj8MJ2zM>
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 23:48:50 -0000

On 8/9/20 4:34 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>        What is the criteria you have for deciding whether a word is
>      "exclusionary"?
>
> We haven't even come to consensus that *anything* can be.  This question is premature.

   Yet you are of the opinion that there are "exclusionary words" in RFCs
and we have to do something about it. Huh. OK, let me try another tact.

   What is it about a word that makes it "exclusionary" in your opinion?

   Dan.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email