On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:10:37AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > I’ve got a proposal for a way forward toward the bottom. &tldr; be > iterative and do research. I've got a better proposal: let the SAA and/or obudsperson, and ultimately the appeals process when participants choose to appeal their decisions, be the arbiter of what is and isn't unprofessional / unbecoming / offensive language. A key required component of leveraging the SAA function -in order to not overwhelm it- is that we should ask participants to try to see language in the best possible light by ascribing good faith to other participants _by default_. The alternative to this is devolving towards being confrontational by default -- surely not a good thing. We have the SAA and ombudsperson functions for a reason. For example, if I use the word "folks" in a post to this list[*], then rather than immediately getting the vapors and passing out, maybe you or whoever might take offense should start by assuming I didn't mean to offend, then consider the possibility that due to regional linguistic- cultural variations my use of "folks" might be perfectly innocent, and *move on* -- or, if the rest of my note were to drip with condescencion and betray intent to offend, or if you're otherwise still unsure, then reach out to the SAA. Nico [*] I'm sure I have!
