Diversity?
(in copy) El 1/11/19 13:50, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: I'm sure it will shock absolutely nobody if I say that I think this conversation is very important. Maybe AP-WG isn't the best place, but I'm not sure where is? I think it is useful to all of us to realise that our cultural references are not everyone else's, because of language or country or age or one of many other things. We can no longer just assume a shared set of references and we should look to inform (and hopefully share the awesomeness that is Monthy Python, for instance) and expand. I mean, how long will it be before WG Chairs start to talk about yeeting proposals into or out of WGs? 😊 I'm not, for one second, suggesting people shouldn't use references, I use them all the time, but I am saying that those who use them should be understanding when others don't get them. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 [email protected] www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid <[email protected]> > Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions > > Hi Jim, > > Despite how many years I've been participating, I still have (sometimes) > difficulties, and often talking with other non-native English speakers they tell > me the same. We know that not everybody is happy to express that in a list. > > I'm not convinced "common-sense" is such simple thing! Otherwise, either > I'm really stupid, or I should have cached the reference in a more humoristic > way. > > I don't think we can compare our technical jargon with such kind of > references, especially because not everybody (as it is my case) follows > "Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc.". Precisely because I often > heard those references, I decided today, to ask for a clarification! I've missed > a lot of fun, I guess! > > I didn't respond to the first email because, sometimes, when a thread is > moving fast in the list, you just respond to the last email that you read. Not > sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" <address- > [email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: > > > > > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any > specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a > mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in > between lines as something different, even if not intended). > > Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this > case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a > literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. > > The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms > from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from > Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's > gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English > speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. > However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the > industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI > address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other > languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those > who have been active in these communities for a while. > > To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've > been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, > this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty > Python reference. > > And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked > the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. > It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling > others how they should express themselves. > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
