IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 F32FF3A19DB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=jVf3F8jc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=rTvos7ZU
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 YI_X8n1p1gEn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF333A19DA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECBE5C011B; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:05:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=uSwkXKp S2zTfscVqsoMbMhG7MrTUhcvmnQ9jFzdz9p4=; b=jVf3F8jckV0PgLjMx9iDDdU 85TiqhuH+aiBD2VqRHvgbRG8+eK81RISolvyCnxew4gEf/br55WAMlX+hdU6IcC1 /u6epcK8nlAP2qL+2Eien+vok6U5o0Nacoxa6bF8g68GweLXhvl9kX43jX8zUFLG WCKMkZ8DzQwJ3ZrN62t3izrUUvSxKzzoC0PBiiSA6NN873Cxom0NNe8VJ4k4sL33 Tv3AYTkLTLy2NeOjIgMu8R75KNWin/7kmGdCNFw55CPxKPA5cl5ZTN6H15GS1d8Z 0BfMyxrCNPhUQBHGx/AAB1xLrU92rqjsW42xlXLamNNXI+4+J+Gy60d/CEAkAQA= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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=uSwkXK pS2zTfscVqsoMbMhG7MrTUhcvmnQ9jFzdz9p4=; b=rTvos7ZUgjprdyjovZy7Aa bMC99Aem5e1CArAMz/qKiVp5RSdkMNTuMeJOcssgVJ2/MCyVzwDv03JXU5Cv1r7w vjV4ADtEdzTSpPu1z5LPyZ1C2Tl5R2OHBNAlhGxRqPlxHL5OwDDKiUUKRmQZ1Zwk s4zU080esL1fEu9d+hRVaNbYsGuzeksWNPPJEKxqumXx5dIOy5iLgIN1C/zPhsVC a0x6ebKpLnVEsHzhM5T+n7Su0PIA3/bdaNDUl15Isdovhz/koTfIY4t3NIFgM4MM xVqAJz6LPCd4N3vali42TCVywbZaC4RRu8vEGdAxnY7PHx/xU8vy0eUWqxcZBnbg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3S53YAoyLL0UF42LthiiL3lUxl5_Meh1lPiKKyOiscaJtLQJTpTBWQ> <xme:3S53YGpm9FWk_6O08NPIcC6duWgCPJ8UeTdiBKerIIMFkxYZ_YEesVyj_ClsfGNNi xL7Ep0t_Go>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeluddguddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehr ohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtheetgeefveetudffveetheffgfehhfdvveekuefh heeuteduhefggeeikeejteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:3S53YFMvK3qfUS5EtarIw_wNPxWmA8zYGAbZlfm0udG4-dGW3IjPhQ> <xmx:3S53YH4kT7BTosw_w-h5fEGk1ghtUv94mTsgNGbf7U7tdxRrox0pTQ> <xmx:3S53YP6B51CK0IYj6G4FG1qinxBV--475qcN1XaCaaNCBd8Ag-b3sg> <xmx:3S53YIU8M_NmkQB9ittBoRMvWHAD6EFsozJ9sCg3tKuDe5RSTSribw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 249E2260005F; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-378-g5ea5579899-fm-20210412.001-g5ea55798
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <76e8a855-81d7-4f54-8841-61b4dd1858ec@dogfood.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6FE260FD-09D0-4816-8CD1-8EDFF4644D52@akamai.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> <6FE260FD-09D0-4816-8CD1-8EDFF4644D52@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:04:55 +1000
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1da11b49e30c4175af59b809f9df9a23"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jmDqnpHrBgpzNtdIFuJ6VFBSGDA>
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 18:05:24 -0000

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, at 03:52, Salz, Rich wrote:
>  

> > 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.

>  

> The NYTimes readership in particular, is not representative of the United States. They would be the first to admit it.

>  

>                 /r$, by the way: long time subscriber 


I think we're on the same page here about.  If someone tried to claim that NYTimes readers all agree and hence that was evidence of consensus within the USA, I would be the first to call shenanigans.

BUT - given that there's significant disagreement within the NYTimes readership, then there are two possibilities:

1) all the people in the rough are NYT readers, and the rest of the USA are in wild agreement with one half of the NYT-reader opinion.

2) the lack of consensus within NYT readership matches a wider lack of consensus within the USA.

I consider case (1) above to be extremely unlikely.

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email