[Terminology] Robert Wilton's Yes on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 08 April 2021 11:25 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: terminology@ietf.org
Delivered-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5FF3A12BC; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 04:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: term-chairs@ietf.org, terminology@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <161788110295.13728.16307052588113680001@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:25:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/V4pYRXWsXkrJUjSRCVhaILr5KO4>
Subject: [Terminology] Robert Wilton's Yes on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:25:03 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-term-00-03: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know if a WG is the perfect way to achieve the required outcome, but that was the consensus decision of the gendispatch process and the idea of punting this issue to the RFC editor was discussed and dismissed. We have been discussing this for at least 9 months, and I think that changing tack and starting down a different path now will not go anywhere useful. I.e., perfect is the enemy of good. I also believe that most IETF participants wish to focus on producing technical standards, and are happy to use language that doesn't accidentally cause offense, and are either supportive or agnostic to the IETF providing guidance on what language should be used. I hope that the members of the community who have concerns work constructively to try and find a consensus position within the TERM WG. I support the chartering of this WG.
- [Terminology] Robert Wilton's Yes on charter-ietf… Robert Wilton via Datatracker