--On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 08:56 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06-Jun-22 23:56, Keith Moore wrote: >> On 6/6/22 04:20, tom petch wrote: >> >>> I saw an apology for the use of '...considered harmful' >>> recently and was suprised that that phrase was .. well >>> considered harmful >> >> This makes me wonder: how is making a reference to a letter >> that's rather famous in Computer Science history any >> different that referring to any established technical term or >> concept? Granted not absolutely everyone will have heard of >> that letter, but is it really hostile to newcomers to use >> well-established language of the subject domain that we work >> in when that language isn't, say, sexist or racist? Is > it hostile >> to newcomers to refer to the end-to-end principle? > > I suspect that, as always, context is everything. If somebody > had written > a draft "6to4 considered harmful" some years ago, I don't > think that > Keith or I would have been upset. (If you don't get that, see > RFC 3056.) > But if they had written a draft "Carpenter and Moore > considered harmful" > we would have been quite angry. Somewhere in between is > "Carpenter and Moore's > work considered harmful" - I'm really not sure how I would > have reacted to that. > > As a matter of fact that work was subject to a lot of > criticism, as was its > extension by RFC 3068, but I don't recall a single ad hominem > comment. > > We can be critical without being rude. Brian, I think the problems arise when almost any attempt to be critical is interpreted as being at least disrespectful even if not actually rude. john
