Hello, Eliot, On 30/7/20 05:10, Eliot Lear wrote: [...]
As I have previously written, at the moment, there is no commonly accepted, well researched decision framework for inclusive terminology selection. This leads to lots of opining (e.g., the toxicity). A few of us are actively working to correct this by attempting to establish a funded agenda with an eye toward finding decision frameworks that people would be comfortable using. The idea is to bring in experts such as linguists, ethicists, sociologists, psychologists, etc who understand these things far better than engineers are likely to.
Maybe it's just me but, no matter how the good intentions, this feels a bit like resembling https://youtu.be/OZNwZiyGEuk?t=168
I'm fine with guidelines aiming at avoiding what's deemed to be oppressive terminology (*). But if the ultimate goal is really that of inclusiveness, this whole thing seems a bit like just scratching the surface and being able to say "we've done something about it", than actually trying to tackle the underlying problem itself.
(*) As noted before, if the effort is to be pursued, then the target should be all IETF contributions, as opposed to just I-Ds or RFCs.
Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
