Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:26:07 +0000
In-reply-to: <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21041102

>    So, as there is no consensus even in US 

It is erroneous to make a consensus call based on who comments on a newspaper's website.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Ofer Inbar
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Bron Gondwana

References:
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: John Levine
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Masataka Ohta