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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

I continue to believe that using a WG to address this problem would be 
unwise, as WGs are structurally ill-suited for this kind of problem.   
It's an important problem, but I recommend that IESG find another 
mechanism to address this issue: one that meets for a short time, 
deliberately solicits wide input (perhaps even inviting participants 
from other standards bodies) and is less confrontational or promotes 
quicker resolution of conflicts than is typical for mailing list 
discussions.   An IAB workshop (if IAB is willing) or a workshop with a 
similar style even if someone other than IAB hosts it, seems like a 
better choice.   (Granted, it's probably helped that IAB workshops have 
in the past, to my knowledge, always been face-to-face meetings, which 
might not be feasible in the near term.)

If IESG decides to go ahead with this, I recommend (a) taking all words 
about "exclusionary" out of the charter; and (b) explicitly stating that 
the WG will be shut down if it doesn't produce a draft by X date and 
finish WGLC by Y date.   (I recommend X = July 31 and Y = Oct 31).

As I said in earlier comments, it is imperative to choose chairs for 
this WG who are completely neutral about controversial topics (such as 
social theories), and who will discourage discussion of any topic not 
strictly consistent with "will use of this word improve or degrade the 
clarity or readability of IETF documents?"   (or something close to that)

The obvious lack of neutrality by gendispatch chairs has done a lot to 
undermine the credibility of that group, and this proto-WG is already 
tainted by that.

Keith

On 4/23/21 10:43 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the latest version of the charter for TERM just went out for IETF-wide 
> review. This is the second such review cycle, which I deemed necessary 
> due to the number of changes to the charter text the first review 
> resulted in.
>
> Please send constructive comments on the charter for the proposed WG 
> to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, or privately to 
> the IESG or even only to me as the responsible AD.
>
> To make sure that your feedback is taken into account on this latest 
> version of the charter text, I encourage you to send comments even if 
> you commented during the last IETF review cycle, or when the charter 
> was earlier discussed in GENDISPATCH.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>>
>> 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>) by 2021-05-03.
>>
>> Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Current status: Proposed WG
>>
>> Chairs:
>>  TBD
>>
>> Assigned Area Director:
>>  Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>> General Area Directors:
>>  Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>> Mailing list:
>>  Address: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>
>>  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/ 
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/>
>>
>> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/term/ 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/term/>
>>
>> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/ 
>> <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. Contributions to the IETF, including 
>> Internet-Drafts and
>> RFCs, are most understandable and 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 central
>> 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
>> broader technology industry about the use of certain terms of art in
>> technical writing and whether those and other terms have an exclusionary
>> effect. While opinions vary among IETF participants about this topic, 
>> there
>> is widespread agreement that the IETF community would benefit from advice
>> about using effective terminology that would improve clarity and
>> approachability.
>>
>> The TERM working group is therefore chartered to produce an 
>> Informational RFC
>> containing guidance to IETF participants on the use of effective 
>> terminology
>> that also minimizes exclusionary effects. The RFC will express general
>> principles for assessing when language is effective. The principles 
>> should be
>> derived considering input from a broad set of IETF participants. The 
>> WG will
>> identify and recommend external, independently updated resources 
>> containing
>> examples of potentially problematic terms and potential alternatives 
>> to IETF
>> participants for their consideration, 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.
>>
>> The output of this WG will provide guidance to IETF participants and 
>> will not
>> restrict the type or content of contributions that can be made to the 
>> IETF
>> standards process. The output of this WG may inform a potential future
>> activity by the RFC Editor to establish terminology guidance for the 
>> overall
>> RFC series, but does not constrain any such future action.
>>
>> Milestones:
>>
>>  Jun 2021 - Adopt draft providing informational terminology 
>> recommendations
>>
>>  Dec 2021 - Submit informational terminology recommendations to IESG
>