> On Sep 20, 2018, at 11:27, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 20 Sep 2018, at 2:14 pm, Heather Flanagan <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I can only imagine the possible discussions between the editors and authors, given the heated debates now over ‘simple’ terms like that versus which. >> >> I’m glad the community is having this conversation, because any changes to the use of terms and language in an RFC must come from the community. I don’t think it can reasonably be imposed by the editors. Not unless we significantly change the relationship between the RFC Editor and the authors. > > It obviously won't work as an adversarial relationship (e.g., the RFC editor "enforcing" a rule), and I don't think anyone has suggested that. I did read the suggestion initially as maintaining and helping enforce a list of words/terms, which I’m definitely uncomfortable with. > > Is it reasonable to mention this as something to think about when you're authoring / reviewing a draft, and have a discussion as adults if someone thinks a term might have such an issue? Sure, and we do that now. Though it happens that authors get upset when questioned about word choice; we deal with it, but it happens. > > If not, why? Noticing potential issues and discussing their resolution seems pretty bread-and-butter around here IME. > I think you and I are considering this at different places on a continuum. Asking if something is potentially awry, yes, of course (while being sad that this wasn’t questioned sooner in the process). Maintaining a list of possibly inappropriate words and enforcing their review, which implies accountability for the list, that I’m not comfortable with. -Heather > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
