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

Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> Sun, 18 April 2021 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <cos@aaaaa.org>
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 B5D5B3A1E0E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 x55UHRorHTjK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 09:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miplet.aaaaa.org (miplet.aaaaa.org [104.131.172.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB8C3A1E0C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by miplet.aaaaa.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 080643FE17; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:16:26 -0400
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <20210418161626.GH2544@miplet.aaaaa.org>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com> <20210415163423.GA10108@miplet.aaaaa.org> <1f2941bd-bc05-45ff-89f3-d852f470e53e@dogfood.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1f2941bd-bc05-45ff-89f3-d852f470e53e@dogfood.fastmail.com>
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ketEEjtrTvXI6rkK6lAnXTOqCc4>
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: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:16:33 -0000

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> 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".
> 

It was not you specifically, it was the discussion with many
participants, with several either expressing or assuming the
idea that "no consensus in the US population" necessarily means
that TERM should just give up and not look into this at all.

My point is only partly that NY Times commenters tells us very
little about "the US population".  My bigger point is that this
idea of concensus in the US population, whatever we can or cannot
determine about it from NY Times comments, is not relevant to
the matter of whether TERM should do the work we've been told
they're going to do.
  -- Cos