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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

This issue is settled in much of tech, so we have strong cowpaths to pave. As a result, the amount of energy that it will take to create language guidelines is almost completely determined by how much energy people put into trying to stop it. 

If people have legitimate reasons as to why we shouldn't do this, that's one thing; 'our energy is better spent elsewhere' is not one of them. No where in the IETF is such an argument acceptable against a charter; we routinely charter groups that many feel aren't worth the effort, but I don't get to determine how people in the routing area (for example) spend their time, as long as there's demonstrated support for it.

If you have better ideas about how to improve inclusivity and diversity in the IETF, suggest a (parallel) charter. This one will be judged based upon the interest expressed in it and the legitimacy of any objections against it -- just as with every other charter.

OTOH if you're suggesting that the IETF introduce a metric for new charters that considers priority between different possible efforts, I'm all for it -- provided that the first item of business is reviewing ALL current working groups on those criteria.

Cheers,


> On 13 Feb 2021, at 1:35 pm, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 12/2/21 23:08, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>> Strange assumptions in this thread that as a community we can’t choose to do *all* of the things that would lead to more diversity, just because we are focussing on one, very achievable goal with this carefully crafted and thoroughly discussed action (eg the group on inclusive terminology).
> 
> IMO, this boils down to: what is the problem that one is trying to solve?
> 
> If the ultimate goal is that to make the IETF more inclusive, and foster diversity, then the question is:
> 
>   Do folks think that the high order bit of what prevents diversity and
>   makes the IETF less-inclusive is language?  And if so, how did they
>   get to that conclusion?
> 
> As noted in a previous email, there seem to be structural issues that have nothing to do with language, and that have a higher impact of fairness and inclusiveness than language itself. But none of them (other than draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee) are being addressed or discussed -- much less being considered to spin off a wg.
> 
> At the end of the day, energy is a limited resource, and one should probably set the ultimate goal, and aim to achieve it with the things that have more concrete impact.
> 
> (wrt terminology, as an author, I'd be fine with an online repo of words that I could/should try to avoid if possible -- and I guess a tool (such as spell-check) from the fine folks at tools.ietf.org that finds them and proposes alternatives would do the trick, without the need for a lot of process).
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/