IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Terminology] offensive terminology draft progressing on independent stream

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 07 September 2021 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC68F3A16CD; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:21:23 -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 VDytraZTtnd2; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4F23A16CF; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.143.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 1879L470021323; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1631006475; x=1631092875; i=@elandsys.com; bh=wk2Hey6OJA/LgfMg/SNKjSGFQcFjRH+vpnqB8efdyQs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oJ8geBBKzx16rJo6ANMXvKmlp8xdccLdThDtWaupfgtWvj0D5JmGDeSJCYN7bfWhD f8Z8CH59M1oa2dG3Kxoftx2SXouanJW5NuUowP3LeQ0HX8skrVt6ZNLmnZvnmeA9KX iy5ET7VU3YmtpXFsx3/aonngrOiSj51LXv53XPzQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210907015934.0b89f8b8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 02:20:27 -0700
To: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, terminology@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <55837B88-6989-4089-A80E-BE82FC4B8FBC@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <6cb09f59-823e-f01d-9976-77ece1ae7c6b@lear.ch> <55837B88-6989-4089-A80E-BE82FC4B8FBC@yahoo.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/JP9rh4Uq1KWCpSCVvDsAaj8cxg4>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] offensive terminology draft progressing on independent stream
X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents <terminology.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/>
List-Post: <mailto:terminology@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:21:24 -0000

Hi Lloyd,
At 05:20 PM 28-08-2021, Lloyd W wrote:
>I do wonder what would happen if the authors of the other, better, 
>terminology drafts were to also submit them to the independent 
>stream for publication; they have just as much, if not more, right 
>to. Diversity is good, right?

People generally have different opinions on a topic.  Neither the 
IETF nor the IRTF have a mechanism to reconcile those opinions 
especially when the topic is very controversial.

The publication of the draft (or other drafts) in another Stream 
highlights a failure within the community which the IETF or IRTF 
Stream identifies itself with.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email