IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 CAE563A18B5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 E9t-rnlDBukD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ED713A18B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15610; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1618421643; x=1619631243; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=Fnlr/haFSf7NHF7ukG7ST70s2rQQ6uMWojVkCFC1ER4=; b=dlXGw4FfFvDS0/zl1y/+eUPY160XelHGJqrDG/9T3BDaEqFGzKIoaIVO v2wBIsYp/pdBszKAM/NfDvwDsI138azY5ba33IeWmDqHPyL2qGyTeZ5it ifV87M23MREkxnbaXM09rOERH6a4BR6qE8CTwEg4Vzh3xx06eCcjfa/Vf A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0A9AAAxJ3dglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCAQQBAQsBgSKBf1YBJxIxhEOJBIhqA4d7jEuIIAQHAQEBCgMBASgMBAEBhFACgXQmNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVQDYZEAQEBAwEjVgULCxgnAwICRhEGE4JxAYJmIQ+tFXmBMoEBgz8BgRiEdwoGgTkBgVJihEsBhlNDgguBOhyCXz6CYASEdTWCCSIEgVUQW2sGET+BBVozYpBejHGLJJFigxWDP4FGhGKTHAQflC+QSaEDk0ABhAECBAYFAhaBaiKBWzMaCBsVZQGCPhMMHxIZDo44Hod3hh0/Ay84AgYBCQEBAwmNDgEB
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:sl0vVK0+v6vBSacPUuO+bAqjBDAkLtp033Aq2lEZdDV+eKWj5q OTtd4c0gL5jytUZWE4lbm7VJWobHvA+fdOgLU5EqylWGDd0leADIYn1of6xi2lJiuWzI5g/I NtabJ3BtG1LVUSt6vHyS25F9pl/9Wd6qCvgo7loEtFdg1hZ6F+4woRMG/yeXFefwVICYE0E5 CR/KN81l+dUE4KZce2DGRtZYb+juDM/aiWAyIuNloC4AmKgSjA0s+fLzGomjEDTjhI3bAutU /CngCR3NTEj9iLjjnBymTU85Na3OHE9+IGLsmNhs8JQw+c7TqVWA==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,223,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35045569"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 Apr 2021 17:33:47 +0000
Received: from [10.61.144.120] ([10.61.144.120]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13EHXkg9025103 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:33:46 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <A3F46396-E636-4B35-AAEA-80FD45242F4A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_628480DF-E704-45F7-9585-8609D56D35E2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:33:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <52e31d01-c5cf-489f-aa9c-cea327ef03d5@dogfood.fastmail.com>
Cc: The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com> <52e31d01-c5cf-489f-aa9c-cea327ef03d5@dogfood.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.120, [10.61.144.120]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aT9VXtH5bQH0fHKiO3WrcQB4F04>
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:34:09 -0000

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.

Mostly I think you hit the right tone in your quote in that article.

Eliot

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 19:06, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, at 02:26, 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.
> 
> Obviously that's not enough to make a "pro" case for consensus, but I am interested in your reasoning for not treating the 800+ comments which seem fairly spread between pro and con for this work as a "there's not consensus".
> 
> Particularly comments like these two which both have about the same number of recommends (just over 100 for each at the point that I cherry-picked them, which places them together in the "Reader Picks"):
> 
> https://nyti.ms/2PTNCWt#permid=112408644 <https://nyti.ms/2PTNCWt#permid=112408644>
> 
> https://nyti.ms/3gaUUQo#permid=112404519 <https://nyti.ms/3gaUUQo#permid=112404519>
> 
> They seem to cover the two main views:
> 
> a) "I'm a black engineer and I think this is misguided and not relevant to my needs"
> 
> b) "Doing small things to accommodate the concerns of others is pretty basic in a civil society"
> 
> ... it seems pretty clear to me that there's not consensus in the comments section of the New York Times.  If there WAS consensus then I'd agree that extrapolating that to all of US society would be an error, but I don't see the opposite case - the fact that even among readers of a single newspaper there is clear disagreement would seem a pretty strong argument for there not being broad consensus.
> 
> Bron.
> 
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>   brong@fastmailteam.com <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email