IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 29 April 2021 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 96FCD3A0887 for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 qGFSzn5E8U2x for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E79E3A088A for <terminology@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F66EC8 for <terminology@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:37:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=R3HOHs Fyw0d1zcEBHM4DWtGI1tq5CUs3Ldzd/rhr3Rs=; b=UUW1x21m7jysL9F78t+Bjc 9QNfkYTQa03OwKTDu/ws9zNynl81tlNLt0HNk4MnQTtqGZ92J9pVB266uVJOs+hL q0BEIuheAQYUFNg0uAY3aO6tHOopheA7/q3TNNgjGdf7PhWkDrhPpN8fpfEkPFK/ 6ALBrr1Ln1vzwRWKoDtylhnewDxkxZIwSLFEsaJ9oXygPrrZanV0fON+Ztk/2jC8 g+wzWPPTaK4KwYTyI5hmGnH6dpMyJIoojSsGwMxJzXrGexeslLwa6pRCBKeB6hU1 LQrCb94Apb1kwvJdaFUZF5GtBUm+uQVM+8OLDcqWHcHiCh7kiwDargMj3S95mMMQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-gqLYG4K5LK5dIUjhm5W-bN6vxSbmAr19hu4-ndx3a_dvDPKw8I-iw> <xme:-gqLYP5g1VXIf9eSTfQsMod3JBahMGPf1sJ0SZpN7KUglP93KhAWHxsTxa7-TLjM6 fyrdQAwarhJZw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddvgedgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtd erredtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuveelvdehge etvdeuheegieetuddtuedujefgueeuffekleetgefgvdehvefhhfenucfkphepjeefrddu udefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-gqLYFfYhua54pYNxpzwvLjowgP379-XBbdTJ5pg6uidZxQRd5RxPg> <xmx:-gqLYDKz33Slq1jg2SLwGWFXG3slT1N6Bup5KYohY7gmgMszj_dt2w> <xmx:-gqLYKL8mYiNm0gpskq-zWihWA65TMiM-SBUi1vZRsKg5l2xfLGEJQ> <xmx:-wqLYBYfH9y3QDgg4gWzpy2WffCcikOvSfbg0ZdVPw3QPITc8YMuGA>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <terminology@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: terminology@ietf.org
References: <161918836800.7390.6996403788262551415@ietfa.amsl.com> <2563B42A-20A4-4A9F-B9CA-518A72A0A095@eggert.org> <5ecee462-e42b-ef6f-3841-4a33facf0e29@digitaldissidents.org>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <c1f2dff7-fb97-0bee-835d-8dfbd3b1226e@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:37:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5ecee462-e42b-ef6f-3841-4a33facf0e29@digitaldissidents.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DC4EE46F8A93ABFB870829B2"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/W5pJx9BkXkTndCC05gCyXPzldis>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] [Gendispatch] 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: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:37:41 -0000

On 4/27/21 11:19 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> 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.
> suggestion
>
> s/effective terminology that also minimizes exclusionary effects/effective and inclusive terminology.

Let's please completely omit any notion of both "exclusionary effects" 
and "inclusive terminology" from the charter.   Both are dubious, poorly 
defined, and poorly supported notions; and both are needlessly divisive.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email