Subject: [Terminology] Éric Vyncke's No Record on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 02:55:09 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-03: No Record

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 even if only to keep a common
terminology with other SDO... Hence my 'no record' position...

Thanks for addressing my previous comments ;-)

Nevertheless, I am puzzled by the replacement of "work produced by IETF" by
"work produced by IETF participants" because "IETF" includes the processes,
BCP, etc. while "IETF participants" does not (at least for a non English
speaker).  Is there a reason for this change ? The other use of "IETF
participants" later in the text sounds better.

"This maximizes the benefits the IETF derives from its core principles, such as
its open process and volunteer core." Sounds really like a marketing statement
to me...

Suggestion s/when language is inclusive or exclusive/whether language is
inclusive/ to be consistent with previous sentence.

Having said this, let's continue to look for a more diverse IETF community,
which is more important.

Regards

-éric