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

[Corinne Cath <[e-mail]>]

[snip]

Mallory, you have to ask yourself: how many anthropological linguists,
> professional philosophers, and sociologists do we really have in the IETF
> to review such work?
>
> At least one: 🙋‍♀️ and I have some experience with writing about the
effects of language and culture in the IETF-- but if you see options for
companies to support more such qualitative researchers to help out with
these efforts, that would be a step forward.

https://hackcur.io/whats-wrong-with-loud-men-talking-loudly-the-ietfs-culture-wars/



> If that sounds like a punt… it is.  But in the meantime, we can suffer
> through with some actionable advice.  But that means not having a lengthy
> treatise on the value of different lists.
>
> See also: https://github.com/ietf/terminology
>
> This is really useful, even if it might eventually prove to be duplicative
> effort. In the beginning, it was the right step because as an exercise it
> demonstrated scale to the IETF audience. Other groups are doing the same
> thing, but it's not always clear what will emerge in perpetuity
> (independently updated). Something like the Inclusive Naming Initiative
> cites our draft, so is that objectionably self-referential?
>
>
> Is it *objectionably* self-referential?  I don’t know.  If the basis for
> their decision is the basis for our decision is the basis for their
> decision, I suppose it would be.  Mostly that hasn’t been my concern, tho.
> What I have seen is a lot of the industry pointing to your draft, something
> that we are ill equipped to review.
>
> Returning to the charter, choosing one list will be hard enough for the WG
> to accomplish.   And establishing the well-studied and researched
> principles the charter mentions will also be difficult.  The best we do is
> to articulate some lay principles, as Bron did.  If anyone on the IESG
> doubts that, please imagine  how you would apply the expertise that brought
> you to your position to scrutinize language usage.
>
> In summary, Carsten is right: the less original work we do here, the
> better.
>
> On the other hand, the INI might provide a locus to attract the sort of
> professionals I mentioned.  I’d like that because there are some big name
> companies who might fund some research.  Who knows?  [Again, speaking only
> for myself here.]
>
> Eliot
>
> --
> Terminology mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
>


-- 
Corinne Cath - Speth
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: [e-mail] & [e-mail]
Twitter: @C_CS