A Modest Proposal for Acceptable Terminology with Git
draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Lloyd Wood 
Last updated 2021-04-01
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            L. Wood
Internet-Draft                                                   Oceania
Intended status: Best Current Practice                     April 1, 2021
Expires: October 3, 2021

         A Modest Proposal for Acceptable Terminology with Git
                   draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-00

Abstract

   Certain established and longstanding terms of art, used as technical
   terminology, are now considered contentious and can be considered
   harmful when used in discussion, in debate, and in reading,
   following, accepting the authority of, and complying with, existing
   technical documentation that unfortunately uses those terms that were
   not considered to be at all contentious, but clear and entirely
   uncontroversial normal use, when that technical documentation was
   originally authored or published.  The use of such now-deplorable
   terms of art should be deprecated, and those terms should ideally be
   replaced with approved, accepted, more effective, inoffensive terms
   of art wherever possible.  Any new use of those original terms must
   be carefully considered and fully justified before that use is agreed
   by consensus and submitted for careful approval in documents.
   Recommended replacement substitute terms should be considered for
   inclusion instead.  A process for identifying and recommending
   replacements to those harmful terms is outlined here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 3, 2021.

Wood                     Expires October 3, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              A Modest Proposal                 April 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction to this Modest Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Discouraged Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Constraining Use of Undesirable Terminology . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Replacing Use of Unwanted Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Beyond Legacy Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Supporting the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  A Picture of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction to this Modest Proposal

   There is identified and highlighted terminology, presented here
   unfortunately only in English, that, though widely historically
   utilized in previous legacy technical documents, contains or
   implicitly refers to knowledge of disturbing historical practices or
   precedents.  Those references, when they are either expressly or
   inadvertently implied by use of the terms of art that allude to or
   have been inspired by them, may disadvantage, discourage, exclude,
   alienate, or trigger unprepared readers if used, read, contemplated,
   hinted at, or researched to be understood.  That terminology may
   therefore be considered offensive, or at least as containing the
   potential to offend.  Many already consider such terminology to be
   unusable today, or going forward, in any part of industry technical
Show full document text