On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:33 PM Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1
On 7/24/20, 8:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of Lars Eggert" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I've been reading this thread, and don't understand how this IESG statement is controversial.
Many of us learned in recent years that some terminology and language that's been used in the past alienates or is otherwise objectionable to a part of our community. Alternative terms readily exist, sometimes even offering a more precise meaning. How is it not the right thing to simply start using these alternative terms when we can?
Sure, an occasional change in terminology is only a small step. But it's still moving us in the right direction, and costs us practically nothing.
This may be true. Have we assessed the full impact of doing so, and what issues it may raise to the contrary? Some of the challenges I see (forgive me if I have missed substantive discussion points on this matter to date) include:
- Language evolves (especially english), so the meaning of words are not constant
- Often terms (or words) have more than one meaning, and how do we provide consistency in approach to terms/words we should avoid?
- in Reading "draft-knodel-terminology-03.pdf", I see a number of good points noted, but I did not see much in the way of describing the counter argument (or at least impacts of such)
- The IETFs work often intersects work from other organizations/communities outside of those listed in the draft above (e.g. . Have we assessed the impacts of potentially changing things such that it is not not consistent with works that are produced outside the IETF but also intersect with the IETFs?
- In the draft noted above, I would argue that some of the suggested terms may not actually be more technically accurate (it depends). Often the words/terms most meaningful are those recognized by the audience in addition to the author (where the audience may be a very large extended group)
- if alternative terms can be used in some instances, but perhaps less appropriate in others (based on technical accuracy or consistency), does the divergence of terms across intersecting technologies, implementations or documents matter?
I am certainly not advocating to not go down this path, but would think understanding the impacts of doing so are important.
regards,
Victor K
Lars
