--On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 09:53 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> If the consensus is that we should not do this, I would be >>> highly disappointed, but I would accept it as a consensus >>> decision. >> >> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job. > > That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the > RFC Series model it might change, or at least, this whole > issue might become part of the style guide. Actually, Brian, putting "language policing" aside and instead discussing control of the vocabulary used in RFCs, that has always been part of the RFC Editor's job. If we were now going to say "the RFC Editor is responsible for choices about technical terminology consistent with the rest of the Series, for the difference between British and American English, for consistency of decisions about sentence structure and punctuation choices, etc., but not for any words the TERM WG might choose to put on its list... well, we could do that but I fear it could lead us into a silly state, especially if, as your other note suggested, the vocabularies were not coordinated across the Series. For that reason, I see it as much more plausible if any of this becomes advice to the community (for sorting out terminology and vocabulary before things go over the wall to the RFC Editor) but leaving finsl text in the hands of the RFC Editor Function... and ultimately getting whatever guidance is adopted into the style manual seems just right. john
