OK, I'll be drawn... I can quite believe that contributors to the IETF can have and express opinions on the language used in a variety of published works that were not produced in the IETF. I cannot believe that those opinions will have any influence on those publications. If we limit our discussions to those things we can control (i.e., the use of language in future work produced within the IETF) we may have a more useful discussion. We might rephrase the question as (please note the wording carefully!): If we have reason to believe that the use of a particular term might bring the IETF into disrepute or might cause some people to feel excluded from IETF participation, would we prefer to use a different term? Note that question does not ask: - is the reason to believe credible? - is the reputational damage bothersome? - is it sensible for people to feel excluded? I am hoping that no one here assembled wishes to deliberately use a term that they know will cause disrepute or make people feel excluded. So the debate collapses to a discussion of which terms are problematic. It is a classic problem that we find it hard to judge which things we say or do are upsetting to others. Perhaps we can take advice from experts in the field? Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: 27 July 2020 15:30 To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language Salz, Rich wrote: > I think we're going in circles here. That should be because you won't face the source of the problem saying: > commenting on Thriller or Tolkien's writings -- isn't useful > to have a productive conversation, and I won't be enticed there. Masataka Ohta
