On 7/28/20 9:00 AM, 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. Or any
analysis of the prevalence of problematic language and trends in its
use. Did we use to have a problem that we now no longer have? Do we
still have a problem? Is it getting better or worse?
Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to perform such a survey?
(The RPC presumably would only survey RFCs, not I-Ds.)
It would be quite useful to have such a survey.
It would also be useful if the draft could refer to research on
the subject that was not behind a paywall.
We are being told that certain words are "exclusionary" and that
certain groups of people, when they read these words, feel excluded.
If this is not anecdotal and/or fallacious then let's see the work.
Is there any evidence that elimination of these words has any
impact on "inclusion"?
We're being asked to swallow quite a number of assertions here,
the last of which being that if you don't swallow the other ones
you're not compassionate or empathetic. So call me names, that's
fine but I still want to see some justification for what people
are saying is a problem and what their proposed solution will do
(aside from giving some people the opportunity to describe
themselves as "empathetic and compassionate").
regards,
Dan.
