Re: [Terminology] TERM & NISTIR 8366

There is some form of irony in aligning on an US government report in the name of increasing diversity.
This is solving a mainly  US problem with an US solution, consistent but still disturbing.
Julien (not representing my employer).

From: Terminology <terminology-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 2:14 AM
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: terminology@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Terminology] TERM & NISTIR 8366

The more I think about this, the better it looks. The only caveat is that a future administration might be regressive.

While this ties us to the US govt on this, we use English as our working language and produce English documents. The US is the second largest English speaking country and the most diverse.

IETF has limited resources to commit to this, the US state dept has an entire protocol department.

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:15 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org<mailto:lars@eggert.org>> wrote:
Hi,

thank you all for the feedback over the last few days.

It seems like we have broad consensus to refer to NISTIR 8366 (https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366) to provide guidance to IETF contributors on using inclusive terminology, in lieu of documenting our own guidance.

I'm therefore planning to do the following:

(1) abandon the chartering of the proposed TERM WG

(2) suggest to the IESG to recommend NISTIR 8366 as guidance
    to contributors to the IETF

(3) suggest to the RFC Editor to recommend NISTIR 8366 as guidance
    to authors of I-Ds and RFCs

Thanks,
Lars Eggert
IETF Chair

--
Terminology mailing list
Terminology@ietf.org<mailto:Terminology@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology