IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 15 April 2021 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE593A046E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UraRCJByKSUK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DBA23A045E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32862 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2021 04:25:26 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 15 Apr 2021 04:25:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <825660a2-ceb9-2b67-dcb2-b6f3fa2f5f8a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:48:14 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Gt-YKX9J75SSXit6HgPjviI1JC0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:48:24 -0000

Salz, Rich wrote:

>>     So, as there is no consensus even in US

> It is erroneous to make a consensus call based on who comments on a newspaper's website.

For existence of smooth consensus, may be.

For existence of rough consensus, may not be. We know humming is enough.

Anyway, for so obvious lack of consensus, "based on who comments on a
newspaper's website" is enough.

 > The NYTimes readership in particular, is not representative of
 > the United States.

IETF participants do not even have IETF membership.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email