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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 14 April 2021 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.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 E45943A2191 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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=csperkins.org
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 car-GLJzX7oQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796F73A219E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csperkins.org; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=aTh5+uqjixSgOU6Wq5XTUrNOWhZsY1Taboq6qCHfJjE=; b=MG/2ogK8kejxOebe58NIrnKi52 XSDUDWK5lYJ5vTSt0CuvB+XBk/OFMbOqWK1cXUw8Mlq89oxDB6cO+4/OBNuU9EqHK8Lau+N+OwpSv i4nLlk6ehyZsWUugLvogFjaFMbWbFmU452KKRERjFnUzR/7t8Sd3++pkwBa2KbPWm/tAmnL2Q2Ypm e9DYD4HjlssQ32WkZOsF7GhjAOAaKcwmLhDbaJD73Te4kleSujJqBL6KQOI2DK7rQeOmx98q95wWx Kq2LHLMriCjIkLx7xwyjoE7pH03nhVkm51z0jZD+Uo1m8rX2bx6gCAS9iyZfPCXm/Jj6bHGEm2Ulo 0aXkPFmw==;
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=48401 helo=[192.168.0.69]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1lWnYc-0004Ni-Hy; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:00:23 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210414184131.GP9612@localhost>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:00:18 +0100
Cc: The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1C3395B2-5CD2-475B-8FAC-40A114E43900@csperkins.org>
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> <A3F46396-E636-4B35-AAEA-80FD45242F4A@cisco.com> <20210414184131.GP9612@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mfLQy9ma4Is0X7LQzcZSNQ8lIro>
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 22:00:32 -0000

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 19:41, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:33:45PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Here is what I take from those comments, Bron:
>> There is indeed no societal consensus on how terminology is should be
>> used.
>> We simply cannot stop at terminology when we address inclusiveness.
>> It’s a VERY small component in an overall strategy.
>> What does this mean to the IETF?  I don’t think it means “stop doing
>> TERM”.  Rather I think it means that we should work on the other
>> aspects.  We should make it easy and fun to be here.  And mostly it is
>> fun (of course I’m biased), but sometimes it’s not easy.
> 
> Well, if we paid attention to practical proposals by participants who
> most have a need for them, we'd have IETF sponsors and/or ISOC providing
> sponsorships to participants from economically disadvantaged backgrounds
> or countries.
> 
> E.g., see Fernando's commentary.
> 
> But you know, the response to that so far has been CRICKETS.


We’ve had such a programme for many years for IRTF ANRW, and had a travel grant programme ready to announce for some other areas of IRTF, but then the pandemic hit, and travel stopped. We’re happy to accept future sponsors for such grants, to broaden the scope of the programme, for when the in-person meetings resume. 

Jason has mentioned activities on the IETF side. 

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/