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

[Lloyd W <[e-mail]>]

Version control belongs with the RFC Editor function, where the RFC Editor can reference the NIST document and provide a level of indirection and any added guidance.

This makes sense; a small US standards development organisation (SDO) referencing the work of a larger, older, better resourced US government SDO that has thought about this. After all, the IETF is mostly American, and this is quite appropriate for IETF LLC.

The level of indirection through the volunteers on github is not needed.
Establishing TERM WG to control a github resource is not needed.


Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]

> On 30 Apr 2021, at 18:04, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 29-04-2021 23:10, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4/29/2021 1:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 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.)
>> 
>> +1. One of the best ways to make progress quickly.
>> 
> 
> I would support this as well - small suggestion: the easier way to it may be linking in the style guide to:
> 
> https://github.com/ietf/terminology/
> 
> and adding the NIST as a reference there. That way we would have some version control and could iterate when needed. 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> 
> -- 
> Niels ten Oever, PhD
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
> Affiliated Factulty - Digital Democracy Insitute - Simon Fraser University
> 
> https://nielstenoever.net - [e-mail] - @nielstenoever - [phone]
> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> 
> Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media & Society here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820929320

I also have a signature.