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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 19 April 2021 14:31 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 A07B73A339B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ocsHvvWTq2BB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:31:23 -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 D47713A339A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 07:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 77545 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2021 14:08:24 -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; 19 Apr 2021 14:08:24 -0000
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: 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> <20210415163423.GA10108@miplet.aaaaa.org> <1f2941bd-bc05-45ff-89f3-d852f470e53e@dogfood.fastmail.com> <20210418161626.GH2544@miplet.aaaaa.org> <50f396d2-9d19-9ffc-b602-b27fbe7572a8@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <20cabdb0-3d66-46fd-4ce5-a9790f388a1f@network-heretics.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <966cb84d-8f3f-e80f-8476-07dea266e8e2@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 23:31:18 +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: <20cabdb0-3d66-46fd-4ce5-a9790f388a1f@network-heretics.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/UDWCybkOrgsJtctpREcZ2BPo35g>
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:31:28 -0000

Keith Moore wrote:

>> However, from comments on NYT article, it is obvious that, even
>> in US, there is no such consensus, not even roughly. 
> 
> I don't think any conclusion about consensus within the US can be drawn 
> from the NYT article comments.

Then, you mean any conclusion about consensus within the Internet
community can be drawn from the IETF list where there is no
membership.

 > The sample is too small and not
 > representative of the US population.

"too small"?

You lack expertise in statistics.

In this case of so obvious lack of support for TERM, sample size
of 100 is enough as the proof regardless of US population, even
when there is some bias to choose representatives.

Anyway, as your point is that it is impossible to prove existence of
consensus for or against TERM, it is enough to deny TERM, trying
to restrict basic human right of freedom of speach with no
proven reason, totally.

							Masataka Ohta