|
Hi Victor, I think I may not have described what I was suggesting clearly enough. I wasn’t
proposing any fixed (i.e., MANDATORY or MUST) rules. I was trying to avoid problems caused by the perception that people inside IETF would be identifying what words were problematic (using their own subjective criteria, and where the decision makers are not
members of the demographics perceived to be slighted by the words), and that use of these words would be strictly prohibited. Let me make my suggestion more concretely: There exists a list (not an IANA list, but maybe on tools or
datatracker). This list has 2 columns: Word or Phrase
| Reference(s) The Reference(s) column has references to websites where entities IETF considers
important are asking for the word or phrase not to be used in documentation or publications that they have some element of control over. It can be delimited (comma or semi-colon) so a word that is referenced by multiple entities can have multiple references. The Word column could have a tool (like
idnits) developed against it such that authors, shepherds, or anyone else can directly run the check and there is no need for WG chairs or
GenArt reviewers to be held responsible for knowing all the words on the list or running the tool. It is only RECOMMENDED that these words not be used. The authors are being asked
to make a *conscious* decision to use the words, knowing some people somewhere may have issues in certain contexts. The authors are also provided references so they can know who it is who has issues and in what
context. But it can also happen that a reviewer or RFC editor decides to run the check and asks the authors if use of the words was intentional. The authors can say “Yes”, and that’s the end of it (until the next person asks and they say “Yes” again). “Yes,
use of these words is intentional” is valid; which means publication of a RFC isn’t denied just because it contains those words. But lists like this don’t just magically spawn. There needs to be a process
for creating/updating the list. I think anyone should be able to suggest adding a word or phrase. But they have to provide a reference where an entity describes how that entity deals with occurrences of that word or phrase. The
suggester can also provide additional references for existing entries. Some people do need to look at the suggestion and make a decision as to whether the referenced website is sufficiently relevant to IETF and belongs on the list. I think this is manageable with relatively low overhead, and it doesn’t censor
use of the words. It merely asks people to make an informed and conscious decision to use the words. And the list of words to be careful about is explicit and known. Barbara From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@xxxxxxxxxx>
Barbara, On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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
|
