Hi, I support this draft being adopted as a starting point, but I would like to see some substantial changes. I have said this in other contexts, and I will say it here: what is needed is not a dictate on specific words, but rather a well-understood framework by which we decide these sorts of things. I suggest that we do what we can to attract appropriate expertise into a working group to participate. Eliot > On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:35, The IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx> 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
