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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 30-Apr-21 08:17, Keith Moore wrote:
> 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.

Yes. The IESG could suggest to the RFC Editor team to add an informative
reference to the NIST document to the style guide, and remind the IETF
that Internet-Drafts should aim to adhere to the RFC style guide,
and we're done.

(Clearly NIST is not international in scope, and the IETF is, but since
our shared working language is more or less American English, it seems
reasonable.)

> 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
> 
>