Re: [Gendispatch] revised (was: Re: draft charter text: terminology-related WG)

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Sean. I support this charter text.

-M

On 2/22/21 11:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Looks good to me.  Thanks Sean.
> Joel
>
> On 2/22/2021 10:59 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Here is some revised draft charter text. There are some edits in the 
>> penultimate paragraph to address comments on list and the last 
>> paragraph is new. There were also three suggestions I did not address:
>>
>> (3) comments about whether to leave in the "master/slave" and 
>> "blacklist/whitelist" examples. Opinions, to me, seemed mixed on this 
>> suggestion and the charter text is otherwise very abstract so, I 
>> thought, leaving them in gives context for external readers.
>>
>> (2) recommendation for a second deliverable -- I didn't really see 
>> much support and it is not consistent with the gendispatch outcome.
>>
>> (3) recommendation to replace “Effective” with “Inclusive" in 
>> the WG name. I didn't see much support and some people want to spend 
>> time defining inclusive first.
>>
>> 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. The RFC will express general 
>> principles for judging when language is inclusive or exclusive. It 
>> will also point out potentially problematic terms and potential 
>> alternatives, or link to an updateable resource containing such 
>> information.
>>
>> The TERM working group is a focused group aiming to produce a single 
>> deliverable. It is designed to complement other efforts at fostering 
>> inclusivity in the IETF.
>>
>> Milestones:
>>
>> July 2021: Adopt draft providing informational terminology 
>> recommendations
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 15:39, 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
>>
>
-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780