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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:39 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi!,
>
> Here is some proposed charter text to address the terminology-related WG.
>
> Cheers,
> spt
>

This looks like a great start. A few small comments below.


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.
>

I think it might be helpful to scope out a little more what this RFC might
contain. Perhaps:

These recommendations will consist of (1) general principles for judging
when language is inclusive or exclusive (2) a list of specific terms to
avoid and recommendations for alternatives.

-Ekr


> Milestones:
>
> July 2021: Adopt draft providing informational terminology recommendations
>

I almost never say this, but it seems to me that this milestone isn't
aggressive enough. Also, shouldn't we have a "publish" milestone?

-Ekr

-- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>