Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Nico Williams <> Wed, 14 April 2021 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF333A183C for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2PeKcwxdMbxb for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C5E13A1B0F for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AED1218D7; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (100-96-17-224.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 254D8121A3A; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/6.1.1); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:40 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Grain-Average: 6e0c00ee633d3601_1618425700245_1397999731
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618425700245:3069850476
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618425700245
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F0C8C900; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s=; bh=T1HuNV/Vc38xL/JX1aQHpnb2W6E=; b=g+TfRhe9Hfi 8qQKmV5/EzBwcxiwIk+F3hJLrfniOlvQR7i92OQBKO+ntzyQ6kssJQfI5d8xFArY 6O5Z0sOiEHE79hiC4xOmY63hsroolPzsj7YvMdYFzNS+EBWGIvsNXNAQ/07HYOV4 UTA/HJ5AIG/E9kyNQP6HGzuOW/RndXp4=
Received: from localhost (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67A868C6F1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:41:32 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a44
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: Bron Gondwana <>, The IETF List <>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <20210414184131.GP9612@localhost>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:41:47 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:33:45PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Here is what I take from those comments, Bron:
> There is indeed no societal consensus on how terminology is should be
> used.
> We simply cannot stop at terminology when we address inclusiveness.
> It’s a VERY small component in an overall strategy.
> What does this mean to the IETF?  I don’t think it means “stop doing
> TERM”.  Rather I think it means that we should work on the other
> aspects.  We should make it easy and fun to be here.  And mostly it is
> fun (of course I’m biased), but sometimes it’s not easy.

Well, if we paid attention to practical proposals by participants who
most have a need for them, we'd have IETF sponsors and/or ISOC providing
sponsorships to participants from economically disadvantaged backgrounds
or countries.

E.g., see Fernando's commentary.

But you know, the response to that so far has been CRICKETS.

To pursue terminology changes with such fervor -changes that we can
easily find supposed beneficiaries scoffing at as patronizing and
useless- and sponsorships not at all serves only to underline our actual
and hypocritical lack of interest in actually achieving something.