Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

[this is an actual review of the draft charter text]

Please don't cite "master/slave" as an example that might have an effect 
on inclusivity, because at least "master" is extremely dubious.   (I 
don't object to using the world "slave" as an example.)

"blacklist" might not be a great example either, especially given the 
historical association of that term with censorship and oppression of 
views in Hollywood and elsewhere.   Censoring the term blacklist in 
order to promote censorship would seem ironic at best.

I don't think this WG should be trying to reinterpret existing words in 
its deliberations, because IETF participants are not language experts. 
    Instead, it should rely on well-accepted definitions by multiple 
lexicographers or other researchers who try to accurately document 
existing usage rather than change the meanings of terms to promote a 
political agenda.   But I do think it's okay to realize that times 
change and word preferences change with the times.

I appreciate that the name and title of the WG don't mention inclusivity 
or diversity, so maybe there's less risk of this group being tagged as 
the "diversity" working group and having its agenda expanded far beyond 
the claimed focus of this effort.

I would like to see a milestone for completion around October 2021.

Keith


On 2/11/21 3:39 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (TERM)
> ----
>
> The mission of the IETF as specified in BCP 95 is to produce high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. As RFC 7322 explains, "The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce documents that are readable, clear, consistent, and reasonably uniform." RFCs and Internet-drafts are most effective when they use terminology that is clear, precise, and widely accessible to readers from varying backgrounds and cultures.
>
> In the years leading up to the chartering of this working group, there has been discussion in the IETF, in other standards organizations, and in the technology industry about the use of certain terms (such as “master/slave” and “blacklist/whitelist”) in technical documentation and whether those and other terms have effects on inclusivity. While opinions vary among IETF participants about this topic, there is general agreement that the IETF community would benefit from informational recommendations about using effective and inclusive terminology in IETF documents.
>
> The TERM working group is therefore chartered to produce an Informational RFC containing recommendations on terminology to use in technical work produced by the IETF.
>
> Milestones:
>
> July 2021: Adopt draft providing informational terminology recommendations