Re: [Terminology] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As the IETF we are supposed to be speaking as individuals, but in this case, because Cisco’s name is mentioned in an external reference, I feel the need to make that explicit: I speak only for myself here, and for nobody else.  Please see below.

> On 6 Apr 2021, at 14:52, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 4/6/21 1:01 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> The whole point of that text, as far as I am concerned, was to keep engineers from trying to get into language games, for which not one of us is equipped to properly answer.  If anything, to me the original text isn’t restrictive enough, because almost nobody else in the industry is properly equipped to answer the question being asked.  The compromise is that we have one, and not multiple, arguments about which list to       use.  Perhaps we can even find one or two people who know what they are talking about when they create such a thing.
>> 
>>> On 5 Apr 2021, at 16:34, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I removed restrictions to the text. Your point about IETF creativity on these terms may be right 99% of the time, and suggest that this be a major consideration whenever recommendations are made. But to restrict the charter at this stage seems like it would be unhelpful possibly in the future.
>>> 
>>> On 4/5/21 10:26 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>> Sorry I didn’t pay attention to this discussion yet.
>>>> I don’t think the IETF should become creative in what terminology it wants to shun.
>>>> The proposed charter text was exactly right as it was.
> I don't see why the IETF shouldn't demonstrate leadership, where needed. In the case of the draft Niels and I wrote, we didn't come up with those arguments or the term pairs and their replacements. Other people did that. But what we did was coalesce research and draw conclusions in the form of arguments tailored to the IETF. Is that external?
> 
Mallory, you have to ask yourself: how many anthropological linguists, professional philosophers, and sociologists do we really have in the IETF to review such work?

If that sounds like a punt… it is.  But in the meantime, we can suffer through with some actionable advice.  But that means not having a lengthy treatise on the value of different lists.
> See also: https://github.com/ietf/terminology <https://github.com/ietf/terminology>
> This is really useful, even if it might eventually prove to be duplicative effort. In the beginning, it was the right step because as an exercise it demonstrated scale to the IETF audience. Other groups are doing the same thing, but it's not always clear what will emerge in perpetuity (independently updated). Something like the Inclusive Naming Initiative cites our draft, so is that objectionably self-referential?
> 
> 

Is it objectionably self-referential?  I don’t know.  If the basis for their decision is the basis for our decision is the basis for their decision, I suppose it would be.  Mostly that hasn’t been my concern, tho.  What I have seen is a lot of the industry pointing to your draft, something that we are ill equipped to review.

Returning to the charter, choosing one list will be hard enough for the WG to accomplish.   And establishing the well-studied and researched principles the charter mentions will also be difficult.  The best we do is to articulate some lay principles, as Bron did.  If anyone on the IESG doubts that, please imagine  how you would apply the expertise that brought you to your position to scrutinize language usage.

In summary, Carsten is right: the less original work we do here, the better.

On the other hand, the INI might provide a locus to attract the sort of professionals I mentioned.  I’d like that because there are some big name companies who might fund some research.  Who knows?  [Again, speaking only for myself here.]

Eliot