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

Stephen,

an informational RFC including 'a few examples of terms' in itself constitutes a curated list, set in stone. Who decides and crafts that initial list? Slippery slope, that. The controversies start well before that RFC is done.

And, with that in mind, that's why I wrote

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal-annotations-00

just to call out some problems that I could see with the list idea (and include better terminology than 'less good'j.

And after those drafts were published, 00-04 of the terminology charter was produced, which handily removed any mention of two terms for the list -- because a document without any list of terms is so much more palatable than a document with a list. (and two items IS a list.)

yes, the curators of this hypothetical list (or lists) may change their minds at a future date. But the trend is to more authoritarianism, not less. Terms that are added to the list clearly should always have been on the list and will always be on the list, and who are we, or they, to question that?

I think we're long past the point of 'just be sensible and apply best engineering judgement'.

Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk

for my next inspired-by-the-modern-classics draft I will be drawing upon Joyce and Ulysses. Seems utterly pointless. But I do have until Bloomsday.

> On 25 Apr 2021, at 06:25, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/04/2021 09:31, Lloyd W wrote:
>> Stephen
>> how can you support this if you think a list of bad terms is a
>> mistake, which means that you don't support this?
> 
> No that's not correct. The list is only one aspect of the
> overall charter.
> 
> I'm fine with a WG crafting an informational RFC that gives
> us better guidance as to how to write better drafts, and am
> ok that that includes a few examples of terms that are now
> considered less good.
> 
> I think a curated list of bad terms is a mistake because it
> threatens to prolong and occasionally re-ignite controversies
> around terminology. Secondly, no matter what opinion one
> holds on any specific term, the risk exists that the list's
> then curators have the opposite opinion at some future date.
> So, I think it's a mistake to consider such a list from any
> starting position.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>> Can you actually clearly articulate your position? >
>> thanks,
>> Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
>> I support the war in general, just not any of the actions that the
>> war requires.
>>> On 24 Apr 2021, at 01:03, Stephen Farrell
>>> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>>  Hiya,
>>> In general I support this.
>>> I think it's a mistake to craft or point at a curated list of bad
>>> terms as I've said before but I seem to be in the rough on that,
>>> which is ok.
> <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
> -- 
> Terminology mailing list
> Terminology@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology