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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

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.

Grüße, Carsten



> On 2021-03-30, at 22:55, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sure, change this sentence:
> 
> 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.
> 
> To:
> 
> The WG will identify and recommend language resources on inclusive terminology and potential alternatives to problematic terms to IETF participants, in order to align its efforts with broader activities by the technology industry.
> 
> Best,
> -Mallory
> 
> On Monday, March 29, 2021, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Mallory,
> 
> thanks for the feedback!
> 
> On 2021-3-26, at 19:11, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Could you make a suggestion for what text changes you'd like to see to address this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> 
>