Sent from my iPad
> On 22 Mar 2022, at 06:23, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > The following sentence caught my attention in the RTGWG discussion > about inclusive language in RFC5798 bis > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-rtgwg-3-vrrp-5798bis-01): > > "Please don’t make alternate suggestions without > detailed knowledge of both the VRRP protocol > and the English Language." > > Ironically, this sentence is not inclusive (I am sure this was not > intentional). > FWIW, I believe all opinions should be heard, regardless of whether > people are fluent English speakers or not. > My two cents. > Whilst you are correct, I can see where they are coming from. The words were a bit harsh, but I am sure well intentioned. Alternative words bring their own context and it is necessary to understand the precise explicit and implicit semantics of the suggested replacement word. Eventually the technical community will pick an alternatives to words such as master that we all understand with the same degree of precision as the original terms, but until then we risk having a poorly understood set of replacement terms with imprecise meaning, that risk the precision of the protocol definitions. We also risk wasting hours in semantic debate between people that have different understandings of the subtle consequences for the protocol of their preferred replacement term. Perhaps in this case an alternative approach is to invent a new name say retsam and provide it with an identical definition to master but with any human concepts excluded or replaced by machine concepts. Stewart > Regards, > Tal. > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
