Re: [Terminology] Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards (NISTIR 8366)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/29/21 3:45 PM, Nick Doty wrote:
> Today, NIST has published this Internal Report on "using inclusive 
> language" publicly, in part because it may be useful to other 
> standards groups interested in clarity and inclusiveness of terminology.
>
> Blog post/announcement:
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/04/nists-inclusive-language-guidance-aims-clarity-standards-publications 
> <https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/04/nists-inclusive-language-guidance-aims-clarity-standards-publications>
>
> NISTIR 8366:
> https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366 
> <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366>
>
> I think both the blog post and the report itself do a good job of 
> describing the particular goals, including some examples (but not 
> especially long lists), and pointing to other resources that might be 
> useful for writing standards that are clear and respectful to a wide 
> range of readers.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Nick

I could _almost_ support just using this document, especially if it 
would get IETF out of the business of trying to write its own.   Then we 
could all just get back to work.

A couple of its examples are problematic, and are actually good examples 
of why such guidelines can do harm to the readability of technical 
documents.

One that stood out is recommending use of plug/socket rather than 
male/female connectors.   Even though the gender analogy is cringeworthy 
(along with the term androgynous connector), the terms male and female 
as applied to connectors are actually MUCH more precise, because there 
are many kinds of connectors for which the male and female ends are much 
more obvious than the plug vs. socket designations.   (There are 
exceptions, like "reverse polarity" SMA and TNC connectors for which the 
female connector is the one with the inner pin, but mostly this 
convention works well and it's hard to replace.   plug/socket don't do it.)

Another example is recommending against use of "totem pole" as a 
priority scheme, but "totem pole" is actually the established term of 
art for a kind of electrical circuit, and again not easily replaced.

Neither of these would probably affect IETF very much though since we're 
not generally in the business of specifying connectors or electrical 
circuits.

Keith