Subject: [Terminology] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-term-00-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:12:12 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am very skeptical whether any informational RFC will change anything or
have any useful impact, let's go with the flow...

I have two comments though:

"The RFC will express general principles for *judging* when language is
inclusive or exclusive. ", can we replace 'judging' by something else ? Suggest
'evaluating'

"The principles should match the expectations from *a broad set* of IETF
participants.", what is the semantic of "broad" here? Does this mean 50% of the
participants? 50% of the vocal participants ? Coming from a country, Belgium,
where even 5% of population can rightfully block some legislations, I would
prefer some text about 'diversity' (that itself is also fuzzy). For example, it
seems that some Italian people do not appreciate the wording "spaghetti code"
(and I can understand them) even if IETF participants from Italy is probable
less than 5%.

-éric