--On Sunday, August 9, 2020 13:16 -0400 Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe I agree with you in the sense that if we as a > community do not have rough consensus that this kind of > checking should be done, then ADs should not be asking > reviewers to perform this kind of checking. (I agree that > individuals are always free to look for things.) Agreed, with the observation that "please be on the lookout for problems of this sort" is very different from "please watch out for this particular list of words", especially if the latter implies that words not on the list are inherently less important. > Personally, I think it would help us on multiple levels if we > could, as a community, agree that this kind of checking should > be done, and the issues should be raised. In case it has not been clear, I agree. I even agree with comments that our doing so is long overdue. However, if "this kind of checking" involves a list of "bad" or "problematic" words (with or without a list of proposed substitutions), then (i) I think it is unlikely that we can build a stable list of that sort without favoring issues in some cultures and ignoring issues in others (and I personally think that would be bad) and (ii) Based, if nothing else, on the discussions on this list, I don't see an acceptable level of community consensus emerging any time soon (just my opinion, of course). So I prefer to trust the community --on a document by document and usage by usage basis-- rather than an authoritative list or committee. I also prefer discussion and mutual education with authors and within WGs to letting things get as far as cross-area review teams -- to that point that, if problematic language reaches a review team, IETF LC, or the IESG without, at least, significant discussion about appropriateness, we should view it as enough of a process failure to touch off a discussion among ADs and WG Chairs about how such language can be flagged before reaching those points in the future. > Neither you nor I > have the right to call the rough consensus for the IETF list / > community. Of course. Neither does the IESG or any single AD if they are doing it on the basis of what they believe would be community consensus if only the community were more enlightened. And that is precisely the boundary between "can the AD ask?" (the question you asked) and "can the AD require or insist?" (the question that, IMO, has been implied by many of the comments on this list). best, john
