IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8826E3A2555; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5JfNmsIC0F8; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887263A254F; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1576; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619450685; x=1620660285; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=sDfAMF3+x64QuNwNJjekNOwkhiDJ0CpkgSkLdofT2X8=; b=Ozeo4+XU8ix1NatLN9+hKf8YPxDXLVjpm0q7S3rsTu5A+I/SrswwAGBC S4GfNDmndBnATDbw52QQ32dPZJnU1kY5C1UD6TkN7D0eWnmmkXLUExe5u Z7uUephODNtedumias9uL9DiZcuBxYHXqRfNR7rgsuPOGy0zWzBfprMGN Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0AXAQAq2oZglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCEoN4AScShHSJBIhxnGwEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBhFACgXsmOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohV2GRQEEASNIDgULCw40AgJXBoMEAYJmIalieoEygQGEWIR0EIE6gVOMBEOCC4E6HIJfPodZNoIJIgSDKwaCYpFqjGGdEIMYg0GBRpgUBCGDP5EBkFC0bgGEBQIEBgUCFoFrIYFbMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDo44jjY/A2cCBgEJAQEDCY0QAQE
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:d67PEKm2WgsUen5IomLzB+sUrwnpDfKu3DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwvc rGpoV56TbfjjENVHY83e2RIaXoex/h3LN8/IV5B9afdSb8vm/AFutfxKvkhwbtAijvstNavJ 0BT4FbBMfrBVZ3yeb2iTPUL/8FwN2KtJ+lnv3fyXAFd25XQppt5Qt4FQqXe3ceLGJ7LKE0G5 aG6s1MqyDIQwVzUu2AGnIHU+LfzuekqLvaZ3c9dnwawTjLqTup7bLgeiLouis2Yndo3aoo93 TDnkjf4Kiu2svLrCP05iv084lcnsfnx594IPG0zuIRKjnql2+TFeNcZ4E=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,252,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35402659"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 15:24:41 +0000
Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13QFOdeE017326 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:24:39 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <B404A0A7-6F96-465A-A1B7-A46BA216B06B@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0D64050B-225C-427C-9C10-2089C99A1CB3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:24:38 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3eae1271-3885-f97d-7d0a-e80af9d88e8f@cdt.org>
Cc: terminology@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
References: <161918836800.7390.6996403788262551415@ietfa.amsl.com> <2563B42A-20A4-4A9F-B9CA-518A72A0A095@eggert.org> <042C245A-0BCA-4BC5-8F28-E2F5B81E5087@cisco.com> <3eae1271-3885-f97d-7d0a-e80af9d88e8f@cdt.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/PDbXD5b1w85drFBIyt8MyXweLiM>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents <terminology.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/>
List-Post: <mailto:terminology@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:24:57 -0000

Mallory


> Second, we should ask every professional environment, from automobile plants to kindergarten classrooms, to be intentionally inclusive. The "not experts" argument is a dodge.

You mischaracterized my position.  What I am saying is that the WG shouldn’t try to decide for itself what EXclusive language is, for the very same reason that a cancer patient wouldn’t select an engineer as an oncologist.  The INI is a perfect example the WG should leverage, as it is chartered to serve as a locus of expertise around inclusive language.  The IETF is not.

Eliot

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status