Re: [Terminology] Terminology draft revised

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Yes, this draft remains quite poor. And it's poor sections have gotten
poorer.

   I've produced some whoppers of bad grammar but they were -00 drafts and
were rushed. This is an -07 that has gone through, one assumes, quite a bit
of polishing. One of the reasons to replace "master-slave" is given as:

     "3. oncerned members of the technical community have requested that
         its use be ceased."

"its use be ceased"? You mean "it cease to be used"? Also, oncerned members
of the technical community have requested that this I-D be abandoned too.
Are opinions of oncerned members of the technical community enough to kill
this draft or are some oncerned members of the technical community more
oncerned than others*?

Also, this sentence continues to confound, as it has in earlier versions
of the draft:

     "There is harm in protracted discussion about the validity IETF
      participants and their experiences with exclusionary terminology."

That's not a proper sentence. It just doesn't make sense grammatically.
I've mentioned this in the past but the authors apparently insist on
retaining grammatically challenged text.

   I also resent being labeled as a racist for my satirical drafts that
mocked and ridiculed the woke movement. From a procedural standpoint, I
don't think it's appropriate for an RFC to refer to I-Ds that do not
actually exist in the datatracker. But there was nothing racist about
those drafts. Lars called them "racist" in a tweet but that was to appease
the twitter mob. A mob created, unsurprisingly, by the authors of this
draft! In fact, much of the supporting material for this draft, like
[Conger], is actually manufactured by the authors (complete with a soft
focus glamor shot, LOL!). There is absolutely no evidence that my drafts
pushed anyone away and [Conger] does not actually say that so the
reference is, like much of the rest of this draft, a manufactured fiction.
Or to be less charitable (and why should I be charitable to people calling
me names?), a lie.

   I think the RFC editor should think twice about publishing an RFC that
calls someone a racist. That's not what this organization is about.

   The authors want to make themselves out as "technologists" but they
are just humorless scolds. There's nothing technical about any of this.

   Please kill this draft. With extreme prejudice.

   Dan.

* a reference to another "fun read" by Orwell in case you missed it.

On 10/28/21 6:56 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/07/
>
> released 22 October, is still pushing for independent submission.
>
> it remains imo poor, while continuing to recommend Orwell as 'a fun read'.
>
> fyi
>
> L.
>
> Lloyd Wood
>
> http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal/[e-mail]
>

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius