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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

(Top quoting as this is just a question, but I know you care
about this and have also been active in IEEE...)

Via mail to new-work/secdir today, I see that IEEE 802 (and
I've no idea if people are co-ordinating or not) seem to be
starting a fairly similar acctivity. [1]

My question is just: do you think the same about IEEE's
efforts, or is there any interesting difference?

Ta,
S.

[1] https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2021/dr-PAR-0221-v01.pdf

On 12/02/2021 00:25, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>