Hi, I've been reading this thread, and don't understand how this IESG statement is controversial. Many of us learned in recent years that some terminology and language that's been used in the past alienates or is otherwise objectionable to a part of our community. Alternative terms readily exist, sometimes even offering a more precise meaning. How is it not the right thing to simply start using these alternative terms when we can? Sure, an occasional change in terminology is only a small step. But it's still moving us in the right direction, and costs us practically nothing. Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
