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

Victor Kuarsingh <> Wed, 14 April 2021 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF603A20B7 for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qftHPeJ0l7f for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F229E3A20B5 for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t14-20020a05600c198eb029012eeb3edfaeso1091427wmq.2 for <>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gb2vgLX8k126akitUj7gHweZa1rczbp75G81iQMtZJA=; b=sFSDLukrVEuycEvL6tA1QkgglFeRkH+Y4oOMUP/8XoT4FnN0ZmrNbr0/2WYNjctIIQ xbNxZPjMGIZoN/krRJvdozhh7VQxMFQTAjPVGdo5R228b8KyqU6VryItUucw7V3LLybp DjXn0ayuBIrLGRIIn+p6xmAR9Z3Sismd63bgUyBYtYYSYPSpKsQzaljTwepAISZ6Go6X ALY3iV3zGBQsB0DJ371vKmmZnuuMq4IpllEOgukSLkTNfUnwUDHjm0AvrEHLoy+IAqD2 nRGvg6UrKIquvlgbZxTCc9shGz+0cF7WCW5GwjExXIQe9zPJZSzbnhiAjOevDi8b8yPy gArw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gb2vgLX8k126akitUj7gHweZa1rczbp75G81iQMtZJA=; b=BaTNEbz2O1Wqfr/boDOaeGRWqy2G6M5KEk6j4rAGoU016OOsoJtos6Vgr1dCgBsCv7 3MWDabdCwBXjiOovGUPU9zkP4K2ZDoj7FJnmhqIH81pNpDmJNhXCOdhj2E9fEtOZukVs No0ndqYY34YbJGktULo5Vj6W0yGRwkUSJad4wIFiiQfQvoH+wVq2Lb4/8oCNd9pAJTEI Kb5D2iQ4rUsSgvzsOsL3zmfrplKakVc0ai92ZU0RSF3tYFwiPrmmyzJ/U7113R8YQynG 1WHRRJbnx0k4jnWdQSP4pZ59Dr8d9KyLpOH53uGEQphf0jkR9H+mExiWXN7X2nGjd7kX BQqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kLE2Mb+1+mC6ZnbN7qEs0FEKGnmShrzT5hNNVw5WkrFz5azlK 8DYgYrIU+QURPoWQ48SIgCK0cxTb1dhj3wVkKyvvCQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiqYzAjRtgLraKEcYVyVzhZeWBLWeIhBWewgflLiTZ/VxNTNbxyYCFm27SgOroVchBjx0kRrK+W4gH1Psr3KQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c3c7:: with SMTP id t7mr4734258wmj.142.1618436012535; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:33:20 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Jim Fenton <>
Cc: Eliot Lear <>, The IETF List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e855e05bff57fe1"
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:33:41 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:02 PM Jim Fenton <> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 10:33, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > 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.
> The question I keep asking myself (and I don’t have an answer) is
> whether by focusing on terminology in this way we are distracting
> ourselves from making more meaningful efforts to make IETF more
> inclusive. I don’t know what those more meaningful efforts might be,
> but I hope we’re addressing the big problems first.

I am most interested in meaningful changes that help people come and
participate.  I don't know if changing or updating terminology will help,
hinder or be neutral in that cause.  I guess it's worth a shot.

My (anecdotal) experience was that culture was the central and most
impactful obstacle to participating within the IETF versus any content of a
pre-existing documentation.  For example, when I read a draft or RFC
(others may disagree), I am absorbing technical content and associate
things I read, including words, to assisting in describing
the technology, method or principle.  On the other hand, when someone
engages, in-person or via email, I see that as a reflection of them
communicating and of their personal resolve.   How we communicate with each
other, as a unit, helps define our culture.

I think addressing culture, IMO, would likely result in more meaningful
ways to drive inclusion.


Victor K

> -Jim