Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21/09/2018 03:31, Alia Atlas wrote:

While I do agree with John Levine that there are many additional human rights and issues to consider,

I don't see how one can disregard the origins of "blacklist".

What are the origins? I've used the term for decades in many contexts but never, ever needed to know or care what its origins are. I still need to know or care. It's completely and wholly irrelevant to current usage.

These don't sound neutral

I just looked at Wikipedia and it states that "The English dramatist Philip Massinger used the phrase "black list" in his 1639 tragedy The Unnatural Combat."

I can't say that I see anything there that could or should bother any reasonable person.

And this rather highlights the fundamental absurdity of this sort of fretting over words (specifically words that are not directed against any human being in current industry usage). It doesn't matter in the slightest what the origin of a word is. Indeed, people often disagree over origins. All that actually matters is how a word is used in context now. And, as such, "blacklist" has a useful, practical meaning in the context of listing things to be avoided. It is completely harmless, completely non-prejudicial, and completely inoffensive in its contextual usage.

and saying it is industry standard is 

another way of saying "keep out" to those impacted or that they must deal with the stereotypes and unpleasant reminders.

You joke, surely. Saying that something is "industry standard" is just that. There is no "keep out", neither implicit nor explicit. Any such interpretation is unreasonably self-centred and incorrect. Terminology is a shorthand that people use to facilitate clear communication, nothing more and nothing less.

The key point of industry standard terminology is that there are no "stereotypes and unpleasant reminders". How can there be? Industry standard terminology is, by its absolutely fundamental nature, not directed against any individual. It is about technology, about things, not people. To make it about people is to misinterpret it.

 WE invent what becomes industry standard terminology - and  given that the next challenge is growing the Internet to the next

billion people, whom will come from different cultures, countries, and backgrounds - taking a few moments for a descriptive and thoughtful

term isn't a lot to ask.

I agree. But that's no reason to uninvent historical terms that have established, clear, industry meaning. Furthermore, just as we wish to take the Internet to new people, it is only reasonable that those new people expand their horizons to accept what was there before them. I had to do this, other people had to do this, and it is only reasonable to expect other people to do the very same thing.

Please consider if you have ever had a term or terminology that disturbs or bothers you.

No, I haven't. When I approach a new area of knowledge, I accept that it brings its own terminology. I am adult enough to not take any of it personally.

Of course, if people say something personal then that's different. But genuinely industry terminology can never be personal.

Here's another trivial one - people using "guys" instead of "folks" - each use serves to remind women that they are the

exception or allowed because their gender doesn't matter.

"Guys" or "Folks" (which, as an aside, is commonly seen as a rather annoying and jarring phrase where I am) are not industry standard terminology.

Being inclusive is about being welcoming and not merely not deliberately hostile.

That's an interesting view. To my mind, being "inclusive" is all about allowing *everyone* to join in on their own terms. When I say "everyone" I meant that: It applies as much to those who have have already joined in as well as newcomers. As such, there is no good reason to dismiss clearly understood industry standard terminology. Such terminology is, by its fundamental nature, neutral. It shuts no one out unless they *choose* to be shut out for artificial reasons. Why should established and well understood terminology be changed just to suit a minority of newcomers who cannot or will not adapt? I think that would be unreasonable and would fail the inclusiveness test by alienating those who have already adapted. Remember, inclusiveness is for everyone, not just newcomers.

To grow the technical community in diversity and

including many viewpoints to handle new technical challenges as more folks join the Internet, this matters.

Terminology is just terminology. It does not any in genuine way whatsoever preclude new people or new viewpoints. It just allows everyone, old and new, to communicate clearly in a neutral manner that is not prejudicial against anyone.

-- 
Mark Rousell