Barbara,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Not replying to any particular email, but to the general discussion...
It seems to me that IETF isn't in a good position to natively determine what words are "problematic". So what I think would be good would be to have a list of words and phrases that external communities (e.g., governments, universities, corporations) are either forbidding or recommending against. Include a reference to the external community's web page where they discuss this. RECOMMEND not using words in this list. Allow anyone to suggest having something added to the list; suggestion must include the reference. Have a small team that vets the request (makes sure the reference works and judges whether the referenced community reflects a community that IETF should consider reflecting -- which is still a judgment call, but I think identifying whether a community is (or should be) important to IETF members is easier than judging whether someone who doesn't share your experiences might be offended by a word or phrase) and decides whether or not to add it to the list. An existing team, like the Ombudsteam, might be tasked with this.
The RFC Editor doesn't need to police the use of these words. Allow for IETF community self-policing to decide whether a WG or independent stream author really want to use a word or phrase, given its presence on this list..
For example, consider Apple as a reasonable reference.
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=1o9zxsxl
Specifically, for "master/slave" or "blacklist/whitelist", look at
https://help.apple.com/applestyleguide/#/apsg72b28652 and go to master/slave or blacklist/whitelist in the alphabetical list
Since this is such a problematic topic, I was wondering if there is a more subtle way to slowly address this with as little pain as possible. People may get upset that I am making this suggestion, however here it is.
1. WG Chairs (since we read the docs anyway), flag a doc for GenART review if words are in it that may need to be scrutinized (AD can also ask for that review)
2. As part of that directorate review (or we create a new directorate for this? ) we flag / make recommendations on alterative words/phrases if needed
Seems like this would work without the need to pre-agree. That team can then look to key external references as input. Over time, with some experience behind us (from actual reviews and updates), we can then apply our knowledge and experience to the problem to see if it makes sense to create more fixed rules on this. Perhaps this is too late in the process to do such changes. it would also incentive authors and WG chairs to pre-vet for this in as part of normal document creation. We have lots of time to make this part of normal WG review anyway.
regards,
Victor K
Apple participates actively in IETF and does good work here -- so it is important to IETF.
References don't have to all point to US entities -- any term/reference can be proposed to be added to the list from any geography/country.
If there is a good reference for RECOMMENDING against the use of "folks" or "people" in RFCs, propose adding those words it and point to the reference.
Barbara
