[Terminology] Further ballot positions was Re: Éric Vyncke's Abstain on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

[Lloyd W <[e-mail]>]

Updated ballot positions appear to have stopped coming through as emails to the terminology list.

They can all be read at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/history/

(we don't have a wg or wg chairs yet? who does term-chairs go to?)

regards

Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 23:23, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-term-00-03: Abstain
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Updating my ballot position from NO RECORD to ABSTAIN after more thinking]
> 
> The diversity and inclusion issues are critical within the IETF community (and
> in IETF documents).  But I am very skeptical whether any informational RFC will
> change anything or have any useful impact, I am also concerned that this WG
> could become divisive among the IETF community... polarization has, alas,
> become common in the recent years in all fora.
> 
> Beside D&I, it is also important on the editorial side to keep a common
> terminology with other SDO... so, there are editorial guidelines to be written,
> but, again unsure whether a WG is the best place.
> 
> Hence my 'ABSTAIN' position in the sense of 'I oppose the creation of a TERM WG
> but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the
> others'.
> 
> On the charter text itself (unchanged from my previous NO RECORD COMMENTS):
> 
> Thanks for addressing my previous comments ;-)
> 
> Nevertheless, I am puzzled by the replacement of "work produced by IETF" by
> "work produced by IETF participants" because "IETF" includes the processes,
> BCP, RFC Editor, etc. while "IETF participants" does not (at least for a non
> English speaker).  Is there a reason for this change ? The other use of "IETF
> participants" later in the text sounds better.
> 
> "This maximizes the benefits the IETF derives from its core principles, such as
> its open process and volunteer core." Sounds really like a marketing statement
> to me...
> 
> Suggestion s/when language is inclusive or exclusive/whether language is
> inclusive/ to be consistent with previous sentence.
> 
> Having said this, let's continue to look for a more diverse and inclusive IETF
> community, which is more important.
> 
> Regards
> 
> -éric
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Terminology mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology