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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14-Feb-21 13:23, Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
>>> If we want to publish a document that talks about exclusionary language, let's just Last Call what we have once or twice (but no more than that) and be done with it.   I don't think a WG is going to improve the document as much as community-wide Last Calls, and IMO a WG on this topic has a lot more potential to do harm than good.
>> 
>> I think that would work if we didn't have a small group of people who vocally and continually insert ever-shifting arguments against this. Under those conditions, it's normal practice for a WG to be formed; AD-sponsored is always tenuous, and not really built for contentious issues.

Yes. (For example, RFC8989 was just done *without* a WG, because although the details caused quite some discussion, the basic concept was not significantly contentious.) 
> I concur with Mark. In addition, I note that many of the issues people
> are raising now werealso raised in the gendispatch discussion
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/6Od2aX-uiYGdYCKZqfvrOHHtY58/),so
> we're going over old ground.
> 
>    After extensive discussion, there were objections by the end of the
>    first meeting to making the output of this work AD-sponsored, with
>    a preference for a quick-spin-up WG. In the second meeting, there
>    was more ambivalence as to whether AD-sponsored or quick-spin WG
>    would be better. Putting this together, we think the rough
>    consensus within the meetings was to have a quick-spin WG.

I agree. (And the spin-off from this discussion is that we also need a broader effort on diversity, but that is a *separate* discussion.)

    Brian