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

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Dan,
	Since you have brought up what I consider an excellent
path forward twice now, I want to chime in with a voice of support
for your tactic on what might be the best path forward for this
type of work.

	Though I must state the draft is better than most
things I have read on this subject, it still fells a bit
wrong from my perspective as well.  You summarize this fairly
well in your feedback.

	I do like the idea of addressing the poor quality
metaphore problem is a sound path that would benifit the
quality of the RFC documents.

Regards,
Rod Grimes

>  ? Hi Pete,
> 
> On 7/22/20 7:19 PM, Pete Resnick 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. I'm happy to start talking about that now in 
> > addition to at our meeting next week.
> 
>  ? Well I hope one of the choices on the menu is rejection of the new 
> work. That
> was mentioned as a possibility laid out by the charter in your previous 
> email.
> And I hope I'm not out-of-line assuming that your offer of beginning 
> talking about
> the menu of options for the terminology draft includes rejection. So 
> assuming....
> 
>  ? In its current form I think the draft should be rejected. The racial 
> references
> are unfounded and gratuitous. Their presence in the draft is divisive. 
> The attack
> on some random person, by name!, for a comment on a blog in 2008 is 
> extremely
> unprofessional (12 years is a long time, Barack Obama was saying that 
> "marriage
> is between a man and a woman" back in 2008, the kind of thing that would 
> get you
> drummed out of polite society in 2020). We don't need to bring cancel 
> culture
> into the IETF.

Agreed, if it was up for WG adoption it should be rejected in its
present form based on your assertions.

> 
>  ? I did recommend some changes to the draft that I think would make it less
> objectionable-- remove all the accusations of racism and the discussion 
> of race
> and language, rewrite the draft to be more about getting rid of bad 
> metaphors
> which may not have universal understanding-- but that would also remove the
> potential for virtue signaling and remove the need for having purges of 
> bad words
> that represent bad think.

+1 again, the key being "getting rid of bad metaphors."

> 
>  ? So I guess from my perspective it depends on what the authors want. 
> Do they want
> to establish the word police to hunt out bad think (and bad thinkers!) 
> or do they
> just want clearer and more descriptive metaphors used in RFCs?
> 
>  ? regards,
> 
>  ? Dan.

Regards,
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]