On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:56 AM Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 2026, at 21:04, Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 17:17 Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:07 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 4:34 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As I said in the meeting, I think there are reasonable arguments to be >>>> made about how the FATT ought to engage with the WG, and ceteris >>>> paribus, I think it's better for things to be open. >>>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with Ekr here, but could we cut out the Latin? It's a weird >>> thing code switch to from American English (which is what we use). It's >>> easy enough for many of us to navigate, but it is exclusionary, and I just >>> think it sounds ...not that cool. :) >>> >> >> How about instead we cut out the meta-commentary on other people's >> CoC-compatible stylistic choices in their emails? >> > > Well, I was not offended or anything. But this issue is actually in the > CoC: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7154#section-2 > > I picked this one because I agree with the actual point, but I am sick of > double-checking my Latin on the TLS list.* > > thanks, > Rob > > > Rob, > > > For what’s it worth, I too had look that phrase up, but it is not a CoC > violation. While it might be annoying to translate it, the meta point is > that courtesy and respect is/was extended. While there is disagreement, I > do not see the exchange as rude or disrespectful. > Right, that didn't happen. As I said, I was not offended. But there is this part: > "All participants, > particularly those with English as a first language, attempt to > accommodate the needs of other participants by communicating > clearly, including speaking slowly and limiting the use of slang." > If it was a CoC everything somebody dropped the phrases “a priori”, “ad > hominem”, “ad nauseam”, or “modus operandi”, the chairs would be even > busier than they are. > Right, and the CoC itself uses "de facto". The basics are fine, but it's been taken a lot further than those on this list. I thought this one was just a little over-the-top, but there was no disagreement on the actual topic, as I said. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
