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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 25/04/2021 01:07, Lloyd W wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> an informational RFC including 'a few examples of terms' in itself
> constitutes a curated list, set in stone.

I don't agree. Set-in-stone != curated. E.g., I have
no problem if we emit an RFC that recommends that
blocklist is currently considered better than blacklist
in almost all cases.

> Who decides and crafts that
> initial list? 

The WG, followed by IETF LC. All normal stuff. Hopefully
the draft/RFC will have additional positive guidance and
not just a couple of examples of what to not do.

But my comment on the charter was more to the effect
that considering that an "initial" list would be a mistake,
for (at least) the reasons stated in my mail in response
to yours.

...snip...

> yes, the curators of this hypothetical list (or lists) may change
> their minds at a future date. But the trend is to more
> authoritarianism, not less. 

Who knows what'll happen in future? My imperfect guess
is that we'll mostly lose interest once the fuss dies
down TBH;-)

Personally, I'll oppose attempts to create any curated
list of prohibited terms, but I'm fine with doing that
later, if/as needed. (I'm sanguine about having to oppose
that even if the charter text says it "will" be done,
as I'm fairly sure the proponents of that will see that
it's a bad plan later if not sooner - another level of
indirection may be good CompSci practice in general, but
likely isn't the right plan here:-)

Cheers,
S.