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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

I forgot to mention that I added some recent references to https://github.com/ietf/terminology/ — 3GPP, the IEEE 1588 PAR, CNCF, Bluetooth SIG — but there have likely been other developments so please send PRs if you’re aware of others.

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Feb 15, 2021, at 10:21 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sean, all,
> 
> Thanks for proposing this charter. A few notes related to comments made in the thread thus far:
> 
> (1) There were several documents proposed on this topic last year and in previous years. The GENDISPATCH process was run, including two virtual interim meetings focused specifically on this topic, and the result of that process was rough consensus to have a quick-spin WG to produce an informational document on this topic [1]. Re-hashing the dispatch discussion is not useful. Specific edits or suggestions about the charter text are useful. Thanks to those who have already provided suggestions.
> 
> (2) Of note in [1] is Francesca and Pete’s observation about the proposed WG deliverable that "there were concerns about describing motivations in such a document for fear of ‘ratholing’.” Those concerns seem to apply equally to this charter discussion. Since there was significant discussion about motivations during the GENDISPATCH process last year, perhaps it would be better to avoid that discussion to the extent possible in the chartering phase as well.
> 
> (3) Regarding diversity and inclusion, there is so much more work to do, and there are many places in the IETF constellation where components of that work can be done: WGs, EMODIR, the NomCom, the LLC, the IAB. Detailed proposals for specific pieces of work or new programs or ideas targeting any or multiple of these bodies are welcome, and a comprehensive analysis as a baseline is a great idea. It is disheartening, though, to see claims that nothing has been been done to increase diversity and inclusion in the IETF, because the many volunteers and staff who have put time and energy into the existing initiatives deserve credit for their work. The expanded and revamped newcomers program, the consensus publication of RFC 8719 and RFC 7776, the expansion of the systers networking events, the ANRP and ANRW, and a couple of travel/attendance assistance programs that were in the works for 2020 pre-pandemic are all examples of institution-level initiatives. These complement many other individual initiatives: regional and local mailing lists, remote hubs, selection of diverse WG chairs (which I have tried to make a priority personally), training for NomCom members, etc. Each of these on their own is small and together they do not amount to nearly enough, but we should acknowledge that they exist.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/iHDh7KBVRvGB2EWKYYh11LjP95E/
> 
>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 3:39 PM, 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch