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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 2/11/21 1:56 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:39 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi!,
>
>     Here is some proposed charter text to address the
>     terminology-related WG.
>
>     Cheers,
>     spt
>
>
> This looks like a great start. A few small comments below.
>
>
>     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.
>
>
> I think it might be helpful to scope out a little more what this RFC 
> might contain. Perhaps:
>
> These recommendations will consist of (1) general principles for 
> judging when language is inclusive or exclusive (2) a list of specific 
> terms to avoid and recommendations for alternatives.

   I agree with (1), in fact I would like to see some principles for 
what defines "inclusive"
and "exclusive". Right now it seems like how one defines pornography, 
i.e. "I know it when
I see it". The problem with that is that we end up with some 
self-appointed New Moral Majority
defining for everyone what "exclusive" or "inclusive" is, and I'm sorry 
but hell no. I'd
rather add some new fangled version of the Parental Advisory Notice that 
the previous group
of morality busybodies put on albums back in the 80s and 90s into the 
boilerplate of RFCs
and I-Ds.

   As far as (2) is concerned, you only call out for a list of terms to 
avoid and their
replacement terms, which seems to play to the conspiracy that this whole 
thing is about
policing speech-- "you can't say that." Is "inclusive" merely the 
alternative to the bad
word that has been defined as "exclusive" or are there some words that 
would make RFCs be
more clear, precise, and widely accessible that don't have a naughty 
synonym?

   regards,

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius