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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2021-2-16, at 14:59, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> May we please have these two issues resolved first?

I'll comment on the issues below, but could you try and explain why they need to be resolved first, i.e., before this chartering can go forward?

> The first issue is the point that Fernando has raised.  What he has said, something with which I agree, is that there are many other issues to address.  Having a catalog of these issues, and where they need to be sorted, would be useful.

I agree that it would be useful.

>   If, Lars, you would agree to AD sponsor such a doc, that would also be fine with me.  If you think it’s a or a standing document that is NOT an RFC, that is ALSO fine with me.  But some approach going forward is necessary.

I would like to wait until there is at least a rough draft of what such a list or document would look like before trying to determine if and how it should get published.

>   Simply saying, “Go form your own working group” is not.  THAT would be obstructionist.

I don't agree. After a lengthy discussion and some interims, we now have a narrowly-scoped charter proposal that attempts to make progress in one particular direction that seems reasonably well understood and aligned with efforts in the broader tech community.

As many others have already said, that doesn't mean that this effort should or will be the only thing we'll do towards increasing inclusivity. I fully expect that we'll discuss objectives and proposals for other activities in the future, possibly based on the catalog you mention above. But I see no reason to postpone the start of this particular activity until we know what else we might want to do?

> Second, EKR raised a point that it would be “helpful” to speak of the principles that guide the work.  Here I go further and say that it is more than just helpful, but necessary.  Again, that hasn’t really been addressed.  That’s important because otherwise we’ll end up arguing incessantly in every working group about which words are and are not offensive, and what this issue has shown is that such arguments themselves are counterproductive.

I read Ekr's email as suggestion for a charter text clarification about the planned content of the deliverables, not as prerequisite to chartering it.

Thanks,
Lars;