Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On May 31, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Martin Rex wrote:

> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>> I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
>> to change here. And I do think we might lose something
>> if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
>> did say "yes, I found that made the document less
>> useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these
>> changes were worth it.
> 
> +1
> 
> I do not believe that *over*simplyfying the language is beneficial for
> a clearly non-technical document.  Using a language that is similar
> to discussion on mailing lists should be perfectly OK, as long as
> the colloquial expressions can still be googled easily, for those
> not familiar with them.  I have to google Dilberts and xkcd every once
> in a while, an those sometimes contain very "local" expressions that
> are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this.
> 
> -Martin

I had to look up some things when I ready The Adventures of ACTION ITEM for the first time[1], but the TAO draft is nowhere near that level. Besides, it's essential vocabulary for anyone seeking a career in project management.

Yoav

[1] http://professionalsuperhero.com/