On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:57:40AM +0000, John Scudder wrote: > On Apr 6, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > At this point I think the best compromise is for the IESG to indicate > > its terminology preferences to the RSE and hope the RSE enforces them > > (which, they almost certainly would). > > “Hope the RSE enforces them”. Enforcement would be a significant step > beyond the mere “recommendation” that was in the proposed charter. I’m > surprised you’re advocating for this more prescriptive approach. I wasn't expressing _my_ hope. I should have been clearer. My proposal, fleshed out: - direct the RSE to develop terminology standards; - direct the RPC to enforce the RSE's terminology standards; - whenever an author or authors, as well as the responsible AD, disagree with editorial changes made or proposed by the RPC, they may override the RPC's change, - but if the RPC feels strongly about it, they may request a WG LC on this issue. - There would be no IESG or IETF involvement in resolving any such disputes. Nico --
