Re: AUTH48 and "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

On 8 Jun 2025, at 23:45, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> At 01:21 PM 05-06-2025, Jay Daley wrote:
>> People may not be aware that while the guidance has been withdrawn, the table of examples included in the document has not:
>> 
>> https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1
>> 
>> That table is under a section titled "Plain Language" and is explained as "The table below displays how some sentences could be edited (or not) to incorporate plain and precise language.".  e.g. replacing "whitelist" with "allowlist".

I’ve seen this same thing happening in the IETF 5 years ago. It was not a good time to be here. These terms are so easily politicized, that they impede progress by creating even more unnecessary conflict. That is the exact opposite of efficiency.

>> This framing of "plain and precise" could be considered clearer and less contentious (and therefore more likely to be adopted by authors) than the framing of "inclusive".

Even if they do, the reason being entirely nontechnical feels wrong. National politics does not belong in an international standards organization.

> A national standard fulfills the needs of a country.  A non-national standard has a wider scope.  An organization seeking to devise non-national standards usually brings together people affiliated with businesses from different countries.  This is where the organization has to tackle problems such as language.  The organization which was known as "IETF" used the English language for historical reasons.  It attracted authors from different countries over the years.  Some of the people reading their works might not speak English in their every day life.  That does not necessarily mean that they do not know how to read or write in English.

Seconded. Being Belgian, I would — quite frankly — rather see less American involvement of this sort at this point in time. We’ve been here before and I do not want to go back there again. Unilateral involvement of any one nation stops at its own borders. That’s as applicable for this little croissant I call home, as it is for everyone else. If we still want this organization to remain internationally neutral, that would require bilateral cooperation from everyone involved. Or to put it more bluntly: don’t tell the world what to do.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Michael De Roover

Mail: [e-mail]
Web: [e-mail]