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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

The whole point of that text, as far as I am concerned, was to keep engineers from trying to get into language games, for which not one of us is equipped to properly answer.  If anything, to me the original text isn’t restrictive enough, because almost nobody else in the industry is properly equipped to answer the question being asked.  The compromise is that we have one, and not multiple, arguments about which list to use.  Perhaps we can even find one or two people who know what they are talking about when they create such a thing.

Eliot

> On 5 Apr 2021, at 16:34, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I removed restrictions to the text. Your point about IETF creativity on these terms may be right 99% of the time, and suggest that this be a major consideration whenever recommendations are made. But to restrict the charter at this stage seems like it would be unhelpful possibly in the future.
> 
> -Mallory
> 
> On 4/5/21 10:26 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Sorry I didn’t pay attention to this discussion yet.
>> I don’t think the IETF should become creative in what terminology it wants to shun.
>> The proposed charter text was exactly right as it was.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2021-03-30, at 22:55, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sure, change this sentence:
>>> 
>>> The WG will identify and recommend an external, independently-updated resource containing examples of potentially problematic terms and potential alternatives to IETF participants, in order to align its efforts with broader activities by the technology industry.
>>> 
>>> To:
>>> 
>>> The WG will identify and recommend language resources on inclusive terminology and potential alternatives to problematic terms to IETF participants, in order to align its efforts with broader activities by the technology industry.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> -Mallory
>>> 
>>> On Monday, March 29, 2021, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the feedback!
>>> 
>>> On 2021-3-26, at 19:11, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 2) Acknowledge that in some cases it will make sense for the IETF to be the authority on certain terminology as it relates to the IETF mandate, whereas others will need to be external given the mandates of other bodies. In other words, I don't think the IETF should abdicate all of its responsibility for setting standards with the best terminology, as it sees fit.
>>> Could you make a suggestion for what text changes you'd like to see to address this?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lars
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mallory Knodel
>>> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
>>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>>> 
>>> 
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> 
> --
> Terminology mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology