Re: [Gendispatch] revised (was: Re: draft charter text: terminology-related WG)

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

Changes LGTM - I support chartering the WG.

Jason

On 2/22/21, 11:00 AM, "Gendispatch on behalf of Sean Turner" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Here is some revised draft charter text.  There are some edits in the penultimate paragraph to address comments on list and the last paragraph is new. There were also three suggestions I did not address:

    (3) comments about whether to leave in the "master/slave" and "blacklist/whitelist" examples. Opinions, to me, seemed mixed on this suggestion and the charter text is otherwise very abstract so, I thought, leaving them in gives context for external readers.

    (2) recommendation for a second deliverable -- I didn't really see much support and it is not consistent with the gendispatch outcome.

    (3) recommendation to replace “Effective” with “Inclusive" in the WG name. I didn't see much support and some people want to spend time defining inclusive first.

    Cheers,
    spt

    --------

    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. The RFC will express general principles for judging when language is inclusive or exclusive. It will also point out potentially problematic terms and potential alternatives, or link to an updateable resource containing such information.

    The TERM working group is a focused group aiming to produce a single deliverable. It is designed to complement other efforts at fostering inclusivity in the IETF.

    Milestones:

    July 2021: Adopt draft providing informational terminology recommendations

    > On Feb 11, 2021, at 15:39, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >
    > Hi!,
    >
    > Here is some proposed charter text to address the terminology-related WG.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > spt
    >
    > ----------
    >
    > 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

    --
    Gendispatch mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!R3CZAyBJFHqxBNIuxhJzgVjAsYjnmT6_O4Ypsq--U-FqQzsQjA9kZWtbfmV-57qGFYKGJg$