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

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:19 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jul 2020, at 16:31, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 
>> To Pete’s email, where should this work take place?
> 
> See my other response, but this is part of the question the WG is meant to answer. Do we think we need a WG or BOF to work on this? Then we're probably going to suggest discussing on a new mailing list. If we think this belongs somewhere else, e.g., I could imagine that we decide that it should be part of the RFC Editor's responsibility, then we could ask the IETF Chair or LLC to take up the work. But we've got a whole menu of options.

In addition to the ideas I’ve seen discussed on the list thus far (in the draft, updates to the RFC Style Guide, changes to the idnits tool), I’ve been wondering whether writing up some guidance for Gen-ART reviewers could also be part of the mix here. This could have a simple focus on checking for clear, descriptive metaphors, or it could be more detailed. In any event since the directorate reviews every document before publication that might be an additional tool to consider.

I would also note that since our collective understanding of the impact of language evolves over time, it might be useful to think about the line between what might get memorialized in an RFC (say, a broader statement of policy or principle that doesn’t change often) versus what might get documented in a form that could be more detailed and easier to update like the I-D checklist [1] (which is fairly out of date but technically easier to update than an RFC) or an IESG statement.

Alissa

[1] https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/guidelines/

> I'm happy to start talking about that now in addition to at our meeting next week.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch