My reasoning on asking for a list of terms that are more often
problematic, and likely candidate replacements for them, is to help the
reviewers.
I had not even realized that grandfathered has unfortunate connotations
and associations.
I do not expect non-native speakers of English, much less non-native
speakers whose culture is very different from typical western European
and American culture, to easily be able to recognize what the concern is.
I would not label such a list "must be avoided", as that is clearly too
strong. Particularly since almost all words have multiple uses.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/9/2020 1:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--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
