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

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

On 23 Apr 2021, at 8:03, Stephen Farrell 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.

I’m not sure you are “in the rough” on that. I would much rather 
see the WG craft a set of principles with respect to document 
inclusiveness than to curate a blocklist of bad terms or reference 
someone else’s list. It would be fine to include some non-normative 
examples to illustrate what is being talked about, however. IMO it’s 
possible to use certain of the frequently-discussed words without being 
non-inclusive, and it’s definitely possible to be non-inclusive 
without using any of those words.

Before someone points out that this is only to be an Informational RFC, 
a lot of people don’t see the “informational” label. I can point 
to informational RFCs that government agencies have mandated deployment 
of, and at least one agency is already pointing to 
draft-knodel-terminology-01 as “IETF”, illustrating how easy it is 
to have these things over-interpreted.

-Jim