On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:21:25PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> At the same time, let’s seek more guidance about all of this from
> experts and develop a real decision framework that is based on firm
> ground, as it were. Once we get that we iterate.
This presumes the existence of objectively qualified experts[1]. Will
we know one when we see one? Who decides which experts are qualified?
I don't think ducking the responsibility to make the choices can work.
Ultimately, the IETF community are the experts in how we use our
terminology.
If in some cases we need to depart from past practice more rapidly than
would happen just naturally through contributors using what they
personally perceive to be accepted at the present moment, their peers
will offer (I hope polite) suggestions of more appropriate terms.
We don't have a crisis and no radical remedies are needed. The ways in
which the IETF is not inclusive (let alone "oppressive") have
exceedingly little to do with our technical vocabulary.
Rather, it is the politics of convincing peers to accept (ideally sound)
proposals or to reject (ideally not sound) proposals in the context of
complex social alliances, that makes the IETF challenging for both
newcomers and old-timers.
Easily bruised egos don't necessarily fare well. :-( Proscribing some
fashionably taboo words won't change that. The most bruising encounters
will crush your most cherished ideas without resort to any bad words.
--
Viktor.
[1] In sufficiently esoteric fields, the apparent experts are
*sometimes* mostly expert at marketing their expertise. Was
Bernie Madoff an "expert" investor?
