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

Bron Gondwana <> Sun, 18 April 2021 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC673A416B for <>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=r41hkeRP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=pMPSQ2n0
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnZ8KPwywdTG for <>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210183A416C for <>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957C4F3E for <>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 02:14:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 18 Apr 2021 02:14:13 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=ELiPQR4 ah9OrDuGn2uaC8Pw50ACZ8+jzLtb7ZfY7pOo=; b=r41hkeRPu+PCN9S4B3GObpV mSfQUjHkfD250JytHuujNCaq9JOvUJ9ICQvESvcr5DBCHo/qRbgbr+/YoQ7gT7f0 tTV5kmzEzG+yKkLwnFBxI7DACzB4wQAn2aw9D+8rweoY8akX60HtGPPXemZ7S4M/ GWuzcEchdVooTVZFVZKVfbGcTMPdACfc6yb9KCrEcS8gU7mHkNRAfTmIF8humBZF G6mS5jH5ULgR3IeXNGPUnDpMv41GWwjQy6DRhASkmQm4Ah04613D79UAENPTraL2 KsiN9CMKKDuHfZuMVdA3phtEmpo9fbVaBPPwMaAqOOKC+vt9oSVPSW5c4qXKLDw= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ELiPQR 4ah9OrDuGn2uaC8Pw50ACZ8+jzLtb7ZfY7pOo=; b=pMPSQ2n0xxXjm+VRuOpJCj R6Vai5VFIslK7wzo6oQLoQsxAN2gWXpMhw/gNa9Fv3ngIt3C/moFQIS+ZvIC9KmO +Xt9Dxg+YHqu0z0gnNn1xJ6C6TyjoGCKL3H41w1WzEjHZ+rmq6zwfQt3CLc/9vi0 HP8Kb1ytdRKaWMuXEEPh2BJy0xELNVTNAHJYs24Z1ekHfMHL3tywEgrsQ3CMlaRI /YZHu1YvgUZ0eRLdRl/0tBvrPEKKCPcWroxL6GBqG4MeiNUBZ0Z0aCdF8za7EmtJ B8wwUc4dYGjVnhN+45SDJHgs/GfjHMYWG77qlfWeaHG/Os630r4Upl7zzFbRRlxw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Nc57YI8MERA_eydk_5cCFnvbOwbClio_fK-_TeeDKI4DTTzPSAVvFQ> <xme:Nc57YAvvVAamznCEnpsf0Rt4gulq-59ZqciN3_fa0ajfigoNGMUWhhGAKjesrcMt- 2hlMUUe82o>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudelkedgudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehrohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghes fhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtheetgeefve etudffveetheffgfehhfdvveekuefhheeuteduhefggeeikeejteenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrg hilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Nc57YOABcuArBazpFU-NRqrPD2H8ys_oD1Sx64iYuWAqWVH_iYnw0Q> <xmx:Nc57YId4nT30x3AsbjrZ9l1ND1QVLVWZxwtNe1JnU9KQVOReArYE3g> <xmx:Nc57YNNfDSGq-rmuyJZdagxp_aWSVqd23jt0HyuMs997wwaqv4K0pw> <xmx:Nc57YDba-tZCI75xhDaPV-4ogAlXP49DXTC3Q4UFng0AKYzcD0mf9Q>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0172F260005F; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 02:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-378-g5ea5579899-fm-20210412.001-g5ea55798
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:13:52 +1000
From: "Bron Gondwana" <>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Wow, __we're_famous, __was_WG_Review:_Effective_Terminology_?= =?UTF-8?Q?in_IETF_Documents_(term)?=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=9cbfcaf35f3e492c9b27a347823cda03
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:14:20 -0000

Sorry, I shouldn't cast aspersions here - just very frustrated at my comment about "there's clearly not consensus even amongst NYT readers" being so misinterpreted.


On Sun, Apr 18, 2021, at 16:11, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Not sure if deliberate misunderstanding or not - but I believe this is about my comments since I was the main proponent of "a lack of consensus in the NY Times comment section supports a hypothesis of a lack of consensus in wider US society".
> And none of your long comments here address that, they instead conflate it with IETF consensus (which I never claimed that the NY Times comment section has any bearing on).
> I would claim there isn't rough consensus on whether particular technical-English terms should be retired in the US population, let alone in the rest of the world.  I doubt there's even rough consensus within the English-speaking technical world, most of whom are just keeping their heads down and trying to do their jobs.
> So I believe your source of frustration is a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I guess at the furthest analysis that is my fault for being unclear, and I apologise that I wasn't able to make my point sufficiently.
> Regards,
> Bron.
> P.S. Your example shows that it's all about how you phrase the question - what's the burden of proof here - that the sidebar design was good, or that it was bad.  Flip the logic and you also don't have consensus that it's a good idea to have the navigation on the sidebar.  Consensus would be all 6 finding it easy to use.  33% disagreeing is not consensus by any definition of the word, even the IETF Tao would say "you need to understand and address their objection" or something to that effect.
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, at 02:34, Ofer Inbar wrote:
>> I'm not writing to express an opinion about what TERM should or should
>> not recommend; I'm writing to express frustration that people think the
>> NY Times comments section is applicable as a form of "lack of consensus".
>> I'm going to make three points, ordered from least to most important:
>> First of all, not only is the NY Times readership not representative
>> of the US population, but also the comments section is not
>> representative of NY Times readership - it is a small and
>> systematically different subset.  And, neither the US population nor
>> the NY Times readership is representative of potential IETF
>> participants or potential technologists who may use IETF documents.
>> So this population's relationship to the population we should care
>> about is vauge and indeterminate, which makes this inapplicable.
>> Even for the negative case.
>> Secondly, IETF consensus isn't based on the potential population as a
>> whole; it's supposed to be the consensus of the group that has spent
>> time working on and studying that specific issue and are very familiar
>> with all of the reasoning in various directions, and the pros and cons
>> of each decision.  It's their consensus we care about, not random
>> others - who may even be active IETF members - who just looked at a
>> brief summary and gave their opinion.  Those random others can give
>> very useful insights and if they make valid points we should consider
>> them, but they're not part of the consensus call, nor should they be.
>> I'm sure that there are many times when an IETF working group has come
>> to consensus even while plenty of less informed people leaned in a
>> different direction, and that's how the system is supposed to work,
>> for a reason.
>> Thirdly and most importantly, this discussion is blatantly conflating
>> "consensus" on completely different matters anyway.  I'll make an
>> analogy to usability testing to illustrate.
>> I once worked at social media web startup, before they launched, and I
>> instituted usability testing and organized the first several rounds.
>> We initially had a navigation bar down the left side plus another bar
>> on the right side that had some important links.  In one of my first
>> sessions, we brought six users in to try a series of simple tasks, at
>> least one of which called for using a feature whose link was on the
>> right.  4 of the users quickly clicked on the link, since its text
>> matched the task we asked them to do; 2 of the users searched around
>> the page for a while and gave up and said they couldn't figure out how
>> to do what we asked.  When shown the link by the tester (me) so we
>> could proceed, one said "oh I ignored all that section, it looked like
>> an ad" and the other wasn't sure why they didn't notice it, but they
>> had spent more than 60 seconds searching and mousing around the page.
>> If we went by the logic I've seen in this thread, I would have
>> concluded that there was no consensus that putting navigation links on
>> a colorful sidebar on the right was a problem, and in fact preponderance
>> of the evidence suggested it was not a problem because 4 out of 6
>> users had no trouble with it.
>> When it comes to what TERM is supposed to be doing, we are NOT looking
>> for "consensus" on whether you want terms changed or whether they're a
>> problem for you personally.  We're looking for the consensus of informed
>> people on whether changes in terminology can on balance make things
>> better, and that depends in part on whether existing terms are a
>> problem or barrier for *some* relevant people, as well as on other
>> things (such as what kinds of changes to recommend and the costs of
>> those recommendations), but absolutely does NOT require that any
>> particular terminology is a problem or barrier for a *majority* of
>> relevant people in order to recommend changes.
>> I leave it to the people in the group to spend the time to actually
>> study the issue and determine what the issues and tradeoffs are, in
>> the context of IETF documents.
>>   -- Cos
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd