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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 12/2/21 23:08, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> Strange assumptions in this thread that as a community we can’t choose 
> to do *all* of the things that would lead to more diversity, just 
> because we are focussing on one, very achievable goal with this 
> carefully crafted and thoroughly discussed action (eg the group on 
> inclusive terminology).

IMO, this boils down to: what is the problem that one is trying to solve?

If the ultimate goal is that to make the IETF more inclusive, and foster 
diversity, then the question is:

    Do folks think that the high order bit of what prevents diversity and
    makes the IETF less-inclusive is language?  And if so, how did they
    get to that conclusion?

As noted in a previous email, there seem to be structural issues that 
have nothing to do with language, and that have a higher impact of 
fairness and inclusiveness than language itself. But none of them (other 
than draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee) are being addressed or discussed 
-- much less being considered to spin off a wg.

At the end of the day, energy is a limited resource, and one should 
probably set the ultimate goal, and aim to achieve it with the things 
that have more concrete impact.

(wrt terminology, as an author, I'd be fine with an online repo of words 
that I could/should try to avoid if possible -- and I guess a tool (such 
as spell-check) from the fine folks at tools.ietf.org that finds them 
and proposes alternatives would do the trick, without the need for a lot 
of process).

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