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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Joel,

On 13/2/21 21:11, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
[....]
> 
> At the same time, I grant that there are a number of other aspects of 
> how we do business that create barriers in other ways.   I have seen 
> suggestion from various people that I think deserve evaluation. However, 
> I am unable to construct a proposed charter that would provide any 
> coherence and bounds to such efforts.  And process improvements (which 
> is the general category of the proposals I have seen) are hard enough 
> even when tightly scoped.  Chartering a new process WG without a clear 
> goal is a recipe for wasting a lot of people's time without achieving 
> any of the goals.
> What I am wondering is if any of the folks who are concerned abut issues 
> outside of language selection can draft a charter.  

I can give that a try, if that's of use.


[...]
> I don't think it is really fair to the proponents of this proposal to 
> object on the grounds that we should do some unspecified different thing.

FWIW, my objection was related to create a wg for the sole reason of 
discussing language, rather than with the progress of said document.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492