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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sean, Gendispatch,

This charter text looks like a good start to me.

Responding indirectly to a few other comments discussing this charter:

(1) I think that, as a first step, the charter should focus only on the specific task of use of effective terminology in IETF drafts.  Assuming we manage to achieve this narrow goal, I hope that IETF can go further and try and improve diversity across the whole of IETF.  Hence, it might be an idea to give the WG a more generic name to potentially allow its charter to evolve once the initial goals have been met?

(2) Specifically, on terminology, I would like IETF to produce a specific list of potentially problematic terms with suggested alternatives.  E.g., I think that what is documented here https://github.com/ietf/terminology is along the right track, and ideally would be backed by some id-nits like tooling.  I don't believe that IETF needs to prohibit any terms (freedom of speech is important), but I see no harm in flagging to authors cases where a choice of term might be construed as being offensive and suggest alternatives terms instead, that in many cases are more accurate & descriptive.

(3) I don't agree that this effort is about "virtue signalling" at all, I just see it is an effort to be as tolerant/polite as possible to the rest of humanity.  Personally, I would be mortified, if through my ignorance, I accidentally used terminology in an RFC that was offensive to some readers, particular if it was already known that the term might be offensive and could easily have been replaced by an alternative choice of word.

In summary, I completely understand and agree that there are bigger diversity issues for IETF to solve, but it may be that some of those problems cannot be solved by IETF alone, or it will take a lot of effort and a long time to see meaningful change.  But I don't think that precludes the IETF from trying to find a solution to this much smaller bounded problem.

Regards,
Rob

// As an individual.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gendispatch <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sean Turner
> Sent: 11 February 2021 20:40
> To: GENDISPATCH List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG
> 
> 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch