Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02

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

On 10-Aug-20 05:49, Nick Doty wrote:
...> +1 to the use of tools including the Style Guide, 

The RFC Editor style guide is not the IETF's to change. Unless
we use some pretty advanced AI, I don't think tools that flag
bad words are going to be welcomed.

> but also to documentation for reviewers.

If the documentation is "watch out for inappropriate language", I think
that is what reviewers have been doing for many years. Setting aside
well-entrenched terms of art, I have very rarely seen inappropriate 
language in documents that came my way as a GenART reviewer. From a
quick scan of the reviews I've written since 2007, I haven't in fact
found *any* objectionable language at the IETF Last Call stage.

> To give an example from another standard-setting organization, W3C has recently updated their Manual of Style with a brief section on inclusive terminology:
> https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/#inclusive

Rather than go into details, let me just assert that there is no
consensus in the IETF on the W3C's specific list of terms to avoid.
(Also, their table would make "to they" and "theirs ability"
valid constructs; it wouldn't get past GenART review on my watch.)

> That is informal guidance (and can be updated frequently), with a citation to the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which can speak more directly to the reasoning for inclusion and professionalism in the standard-setting process.
> 
> I’m grateful to the IESG for their statement noting the harm of exclusionary language, which is important to hear from community leaders. Most of the work of language changes will be made by individuals in smaller ways. Earlier this year, a quick review from a collaborator found usage of “whitelist”/“blacklist” in one of my older drafts, and a PR made it easy to correct the document, which also improved the precision of the metaphor in use. I think most authors will be similarly grateful for the feedback and that getting those comments in reviews done earlier in the process will make it easier for authors and readers.

Yes, but a blocklist/allowlist like the W3C's will not get very far in
the IETF's world of rough consensus. I think we have to be more subtle.
For example, words like "oppressive" and "inclusive" or "exclusionary"
are themselves value judgments and carry a certain amount of bias
with them. You can clearly see that in the endless loop of discussion
on the IETF main lits. I'd much rather we say "inappropriate" or
"unprofessional" when defining our topic.

    Brian