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 17:07 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 E3EC43A17A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:07:21 -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=o5wa5Lzg; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=v3sDd1zm
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 yBmBu6gLkS7Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:07:16 -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 9484A3A1771 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118375C0044 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:07:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:07:12 -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=nKzFN8T ozvAaJ8fGZJIfAYhU+Ex/aJdW88g8pwbFGQQ=; b=o5wa5Lzgy5C9OID6U0CFACJ Q0darMXS1syE2zC90DvJRZ/pJNm9to+eooLx4OIEBlorK+znlaPgZcI2MtyE3ThJ c0lSpeejySwN8TNc+5C64ISz8YAnaa7dt5boWdCzcxP3ipIy0BmT1tderYawwh6m zBDqVjtTWuZDnuzj4J6oTAbIf1s7D7BDxNKmSjaKB1kb0l57/dCPVDTOKNtSzU0Q +uyKsF2kT+LDSTSdg+S64PUlAoEdbfyeobqkb+8sjKdqVbNB2r8ac9m9HJClRpTl 8uyQ/r7l9HPCyaG0mjzSCW7k+XJswVpVVVNKL50zLbq7uScnsBcsxfHr4gI0cuw= =
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=nKzFN8 TozvAaJ8fGZJIfAYhU+Ex/aJdW88g8pwbFGQQ=; b=v3sDd1zmRFpsdInE/ayvq1 Edw3HEVX/eoqSdrNLlxYhHKVXvp4PdFHrqIm1zBoZzp4Nq/lPSmsdh9KsOlLod1p 0SqiPYFjTYhUtuHjNBZPNj1S+F2qED2Pdi3nBx4zd7T+j0BEJYbtxTSWfmuhv2ct X1apGl9jRnq6i2tUCLFYGgBDN5sqm8lX+H1gBXv8EQ68gIxo6hwjCJGTZ2viC4QJ mAhqeX583tDYBySrslF5cX2rgvrcaQohjMCFlf4Ry1yfcLGdInfGpGZMPrBDYxRu l6mVhBGEjpnfoZEDaSd9ijXsz2WBcqXvUGOllz/hgcZu3CR7wJc7a3lGyesW+QiA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PyF3YH6XPVBx1dNt3mnUHMB36oFmb_35syT-fK_njkTfGgVp6Qalyw> <xme:PyF3YM7QcrSg3mLHjQaHukGNYsJ_ZU45ejuvezleSpEUabjq9N8S3j4ovX1f8DZIY ZjbM2DKJh4>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeluddguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrg dtreerreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhhonhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhg sehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvdejieefie ejtdeiieejleelleduvddtveetvedtueevtdefheejfffhjeeuhffhnecuffhomhgrihhn pehnhihtihdrmhhsnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepsghrohhnghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PyF3YOdTxBUieaylfotd-P-w9uZbg0KbDEVXxEy5481_8Nyj_r5Bxw> <xmx:PyF3YIKv0Je2l0SuuerSixRB1XdWy34ptiy3YyCC4d8MSAy9CYPFPQ> <xmx:PyF3YLJKpeWUdwttsxQ51UZQ9hlUZoHJpZiAWIHwI5gCWt3RksGlmQ> <xmx:QCF3YAU0jkweVc1nYjyvvt-KLCVoY-4_tsJgH8a5lwGav8OEYe79_w>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE172260005F; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:07:11 -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: <52e31d01-c5cf-489f-aa9c-cea327ef03d5@dogfood.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:06:47 +1000
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1fe8bb1dac704a9c9e3e0125b24fc2ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rXTgRuaAY5zyP2knfpSb8rJTHxA>
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 17:07:22 -0000

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, at 02:26, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >    So, as there is no consensus even in US 
> 
> It is erroneous to make a consensus call based on who comments on a newspaper's website.

Obviously that's not enough to make a "pro" case for consensus, but I am interested in your reasoning for not treating the 800+ comments which seem fairly spread between pro and con for this work as a "there's not consensus".

Particularly comments like these two which both have about the same number of recommends (just over 100 for each at the point that I cherry-picked them, which places them together in the "Reader Picks"):

https://nyti.ms/2PTNCWt#permid=112408644

https://nyti.ms/3gaUUQo#permid=112404519

They seem to cover the two main views:

a) "I'm a black engineer and I think this is misguided and not relevant to my needs"

b) "Doing small things to accommodate the concerns of others is pretty basic in a civil society"

... it seems pretty clear to me that there's not consensus in the comments section of the New York Times.  If there WAS consensus then I'd agree that extrapolating that to all of US society would be an error, 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.

Bron.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email