On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > > > > Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> writes: > > > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. > >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > > terms now than the previous discussion round. > > If y'all are going to choose a new term, please do so for the right > reason. This thread was started by Kazunori saying "the word "lame" may > have a discriminatory meaning". I spent hours a few years ago looking into > this when it first came up, and I believe he is incorrect, or at least too > concerned. In the US and UK, the use of "lame" is mostly descriptive, only > occasionally derogatory. Of course it is a negative word: that's the point. > But it's not used against people in the same way that some other negative > words are. > Specifically commenting on this: I don't think it matters how two countries in the world (US and UK) use the word if that's not how the rest of the world interprets it. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
