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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Hello again,

On 2/13/21 10:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 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 believe that the (1) is a prerequisite for understanding (2).   (1) is not something that this organization has the critical mass of expertise to develop.*  Rather we must reference the work of others.  Before we charter a WG, I would like to understand from whence these principles or their basis will come, and why those sources should be considered authoritative.  Otherwise we are setting ourselves up to have the same arguments again and again and again.  Let’s not do that.

   I would posit that an authoritative source on (1) would be able to 
coherently
explain the relationship between using specific language and diversity. 
There
seems to be a kind of "underpants gnomes" [1] explanation that goes like 
this:

   step 1: stop using the words "master" and "slave"
   step 2: ???
   step 3: more diverse and inclusive IETF

So anyone who can explain step 2 in sufficient detail to get from step 1 to
step 3 would probably be an authority on the matter.

   regards,

   Dan.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)

> Eliot
> *And were it otherwise, perhaps we wouldn’t need such a working group in the first place.
>

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius