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

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Fri, 12 February 2021 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20463A1645 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlZ7Cbc6fG2j for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030B13A1644 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 11CD8bOv068704; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 11CD8aCg068703; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202102121308.11CD8aCg068703@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <A531C377-33A4-4138-BE28-788FF5FE267E@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 05:08:36 -0800
CC: GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/eG7whqlhFj1wuUWSAbIjKOAk5Po>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:08:43 -0000

Hello,
	I am glad to see this text and that this work is
headed towards WG formation.  We should focus here in GENDISP
on the text of this charter, and NOT on the work that shall
need to be done by the WG, which some of the other comments
so far seem to be going off into.

	One comment inline below.

Regards,
Rod Grimes

> 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. 

Though examples are generally good this example could itself also be considered a sample of what we do not want in our documents and if we can I feel it would be better if we could remove it.  I am confident the WG members would be aware of what some of the "certain terms" are.

> 
> 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 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org