On 2022/10/13 17:22, I wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
Since the last last time you mention, AFAIK, there has been a lot more
focus
on language in the IETF including inclusive language which made every
RFC author
more involved in considerations about language by being called out on
it by
RFC editor.
As for difficulties with inclusive language, see, for example:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/szfzLAbV9EmQ7kmz3HGfaLkLhT0/
As such, insisting on inclusive language with your own idea
on "inclusive" is rather a problem to be corrected, not a
good practice to be followed, I think.
Are there anyone who still think, so called, "inclusive"
language, which, IMHO, actually is against inclusiveness only
to authorize/promote/encourage racial discrimination, is a
good practice to follow?
If not, can we conclude that we must ban the false attempt of
inclusiveness coined by a random idea by a some person who was,
but seemingly/hopefully is not, working for twitter?
I really don't want the Lords of the Rings banned merely
because it features "Gandalf the White".
Masataka Ohta
