Hi -
I support the general goals you've
stated below, but I have a few problems with how you're (IESG)
suggesting we approach them. Two in particular:
1) The onus for implementing whatever
we end up deciding will be on the RFC Editor and the RPC - that
argues that the primary driver of the language effort should be
rooted over on the rfc-interest mailing list, and driven by the
RSE (or the temporary equivalent) and not as part of the general
area. I'm not sure why this even needs to run past Dispatch?
2) I'm not enamored of the document [1]
for a number of reasons:
- At least three of the sources (BrodieGravesGraves, Burgest,
Eglash) are behind paywalls making it difficult for anyone
besides the authors to do a meaningful review
- other sources appear to be paper only - at least there are
no on-line references
- there are few peer-reviewed scholarly papers referenced - it
would be helpful to have more to strengthen any arguments
rather than depending on popular press opinion pieces (Grewal,
Jansens, McClelland)
- because X, Y and Z did it isn't a great set of arguments for
why we should do it (e.g, Drupal, Github, etc)
- If we're going to get into this, we need to also address
"master" as a stand-alone term, not simply in the context of
"master/slave" - e.g. "master copy", "mastering a recording",
"zone master file", "mastering a skill", "master controller".
I'd *really* like to not have to do this multiple times
because we lacked imagination or completeness.
- the list of master/slave alternatives within the document doesn't really deal with the "controlling entity/controlled entity" pattern.
Later, Mike
On 7/23/2020 12:35 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG believes the use of oppressive or exclusionary language is harmful. Such terminology is present in some IETF documents, including standards-track RFCs, and has been for many years. It is at odds with our objective of creating an inclusive and respectful environment in the IETF, and among readers of our documents. The IESG realizes that the views of the community about this topic are not uniform. Determining an actionable policy regarding problematic language is an ongoing process. We wanted to highlight that initial discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a draft [1] is slated for discussion in GENDISPATCH [2] at IETF 108). Updating terminology in previously published RFCs is a complex endeavor, while making adjustments in the language used in our documents in the future should be more straightforward. The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this issue going forward. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-gendispatch-03 _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
