On 28/7/20 13:00, Nico Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:35:45AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
I'm surprised not to find there anything like a survey of RFCs, current
I-Ds, and maybe even expired I-Ds, of problematic language.
Well, for the time being, my understanding is that the list itself of
what's considered "offensive language" is being produced.
Or any
analysis of the prevalence of problematic language and trends in its
use.
There's empirical evidence that such language has been used.
Did we use to have a problem that we now no longer have?
If the use of such language is considered a problem, then yes, that
still happens. And since people come and go, whatever has happened in
the past may be different from what happens in the future. So I'm not
sure to what extent that would be relevant.
Do we still have a problem?
Part of the problem, I guess, is the definition of "we". e.g., since the
vast majority of IETF participants are white, probably the answer to "do
we have a problem?" will, from that perspective, be "no".
Similarly, most folks will have no problems with the use of
"balkanization", since the vast majority of participants are not from
the balkans.
And most folks will be happy to use "third-world countries" or the like,
since most participants are from what are typically considered
"developed countries".
Is it getting better or worse?
Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to perform such a survey?
IMO, that would be like overengineering the isue, but....
(The RPC presumably would only survey RFCs, not I-Ds.)
Actually, if such survey were to be done, it should probably done on
RFC, I-Ds, and mailing lists. Because, if such language is offensive, it
doesn't matter the specific status of the document that uses it, or
whether it's a mailing-list post as opposed to an actual document.
Just my two cents,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
