Re: [EXTERNAL] Inclusive language

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

BTW, I did the same for where "Backup" was used a noun. However, there were much fewer of these. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 3/22/22, 10:35 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Sasha, Stewart, 

    Actually, I don't like the inconsistency as there are instances of both "the Active..." and "the Active router...".  I chose the latter since the concise option where "Active" is used as a noun has caused some confusion. 

    Thanks,
    Acee

    On 3/22/22, 9:50 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

        Sasha, Stewart, 

        On 3/22/22, 9:02 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" <[e-mail]> wrote:

            Stewart,
            Lots of thanks for a prompt and very useful response!

            Regards,
            Sasha

            Office: [phone]
            Cell:      [phone]
            Email:   [e-mail]

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> 
            Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:58 PM
            To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
            Cc: Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
            Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Inclusive language



            > On 22 Mar 2022, at 12:28, Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]> wrote:
            > 
            > Hi all,
            > I am not a native English speaker, and my understanding of what makes the language inclusive or non-inclusive is quite limited.
            > But I have a couple of naive questions about the current  draft 
            > (https://clicktime.symantec.com/3UgRzehrLtXbpVVoFJjwExg6H4?u=https%3A%
            > 2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5
            > 798bis-03%29%3A 1. The draft uses the word "owner" quite frequently . 
            > Are the authors (and the community)  sure this word is not "burdened"?

            The term is "address owner” and is from the original. 

        I don't think ownership of an address represents any inclusive language problems or clarity problems. If you have a reference indicating otherwise please provide a pointer. 

            > 2. Is the text "Note that if the IPvX address owner is available, then it will always become the Active" proper English, i.e. is "Active" a noun so that it can be prepended with "the"? 

            Looking at a couple of instances it looks like the authors have s/Master/Active/. I don’t think Active is a noun, so I think they need to s/Master/Active Router/

        I thought about this and added this short paragraph to section 2:

            The terms "Active" and "Backup" are concise terms for "Active VRRP
           Router" and "Backup VRRP Router".


        Note that the term "Active" can be used as a noun. 

            https://www.dictionary.com/browse/active


            If it were me I think that I would define AR == Active Router near the top and just use that term. 

            Certainly the substitution of Master for Active does not work well and i wonder the term is not going to cause a bigger issue in the global engineering community than retaining the term Master.

        So why didn't you have the same problem with "Backup" in the original RFC as it can also be used an either an adjective or a noun. I strongly disagree with this being a problem. 

        Acee

            - Stewart



            > 
            > Regards,
            > Sasha
            > 
            > Office: [phone]
            > Cell:      [phone]
            > Email:   [e-mail]
            > 
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
            > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:40 AM
            > To: Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi 
            > <[e-mail]>
            > Cc: [e-mail]
            > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Inclusive language
            > 
            > In this case, as Acee pointed out in his presentation, there seemed to be a technically accurate alternative term that is not burdened.
            > 
            > So unless one has good reason to believe "active' is burdened, discussing further alternative terms seems coutner-productive.
            > 
            > Yours,
            > Joel
            > 
            > On 3/22/2022 4:02 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
            >> 
            >> 
            >> Sent from my iPad
            >> 
            >>> On 22 Mar 2022, at 06:23, Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
            >>> 
            >>> Hi,
            >>> 
            >>> The following sentence caught my attention in the RTGWG discussion 
            >>> about inclusive language in RFC5798 bis 
            >>> (https://clicktime.symantec.com/3L8AZoX2tj7p3qPnJsD6UeC7GS?u=https%3
            >>> A 
            >>> %2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F113%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-113-
            >>> r
            >>> tgwg-3-vrrp-5798bis-01%29%3A
            >>> 
            >>> "Please don’t make alternate suggestions without detailed knowledge 
            >>> of both the VRRP protocol and the English Language."
            >>> 
            >>> Ironically, this sentence is not inclusive (I am sure this was not intentional).
            >>> FWIW, I believe all opinions should be heard, regardless of whether 
            >>> people are fluent English speakers or not.
            >>> My two cents.
            >>> 
            >> 
            >> Whilst you are correct, I can see where they are coming from.
            >> 
            >> The words were a bit harsh, but I am sure well intentioned.
            >> 
            >> Alternative words bring their own context and it is necessary to understand the precise explicit and implicit semantics of the suggested replacement word. Eventually the technical community will pick an alternatives to words such as master that we all understand with the same degree of precision as the original terms, but until then we risk having a poorly understood set of replacement terms with imprecise meaning, that risk the precision of the protocol definitions. We also risk wasting hours in semantic debate between people that have different understandings of the subtle consequences for the protocol of their preferred replacement term.
            >> 
            >> Perhaps in this case an alternative approach is to invent a new name say retsam and provide it with an identical definition to master but with any human concepts excluded or replaced by machine concepts.
            >> 
            >> Stewart
            >> 
            >> 
            >>> Regards,
            >>> Tal.
            >>> 
            >>> _______________________________________________
            >>> rtgwg mailing list
            >>> [e-mail]
            >>> https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A
            >>> % 2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg
            >> 
            >> _______________________________________________
            >> rtgwg mailing list
            >> [e-mail]
            >> https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A%
            >> 2 F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg
            > 
            > _______________________________________________
            > rtgwg mailing list
            > [e-mail]
            > https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A%2
            > F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg
            > 
            > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
            > 
            > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.

            Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.