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

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

I support the charter.

One nit,

independently-updated resource

should be:

independently updated resource.

And one substantive point: It would make sense for alignment to be a bit 
more flexible for what happens within the IETF. So I propose two fixes,

1) Use "resource_s_".

2) Acknowledge that in some cases it will make sense for the IETF to be 
the authority on certain terminology as it relates to the IETF mandate, 
whereas others will need to be external given the mandates of other 
bodies. In other words, I don't think the IETF should abdicate all of 
its responsibility for setting standards with the best terminology, as 
it sees fit.

-Mallory

On 3/26/21 1:06 PM, The IESG wrote:
> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the General Area. The IESG has not made
> any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the
> IESG mailing list ([e-mail]) by 2021-04-05.
>
> Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Current status: Proposed WG
>
> Chairs:
>    TBD
>
> Assigned Area Director:
>    Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
>
> General Area Directors:
>    Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
>
> Mailing list:
>    Address: [e-mail]
>    To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
>    Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/
>
> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/term/
>
> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/
>
> The mission of the IETF as specified in BCP 95 is to produce high quality,
> relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and
> manage the Internet. IETF documents, including RFCs and Internet-Drafts, are
> most effective when they use terminology that is clear, precise, and widely
> accessible to readers from varying backgrounds and cultures. This maximizes
> the benefits the IETF derives from its core principles, such as its open
> process and volunteer core.
>
> In the years leading up to the chartering of this working group, there has
> been discussion in the IETF, in other standards organizations, and in the
> technology industry about the use of certain terms (such as "master/slave"
> and "blacklist/whitelist") in technical documentation and whether those and
> other terms have effects on inclusivity. While opinions vary among IETF
> participants about this topic, there is general agreement that the IETF
> community would benefit from informational recommendations about using
> effective and inclusive terminology in IETF documents.
>
> The TERM working group is therefore chartered to produce an Informational RFC
> containing recommendations on the use of inclusive terminology in the
> technical work produced by IETF participants. The RFC will express general
> principles for assessing when language is inclusive or exclusive. The
> principles should match the expectations from a diverse set of IETF
> participants. The WG will identify and recommend an external,
> independently-updated resource containing examples of potentially problematic
> terms and potential alternatives to IETF participants, in order to align its
> efforts with broader activities by the technology industry.
>
> The TERM working group is a focused group aiming to produce a single
> deliverable. It is designed to complement other efforts at fostering
> inclusivity in the IETF and will liaise with appropriate external groups,
> such as other SDOs or industry initiatives, to coordinate.
>
> Milestones:
>
>    Jun 2021 - Adopt draft providing informational terminology recommendations
>
>    Dec 2021 - Submit informational terminology recommendations to IESG
>
>
>
-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780