Subject: [Terminology] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 06:23:21 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-03: Abstain

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Updating my ballot position from NO RECORD to ABSTAIN after more thinking]

The diversity and inclusion issues are critical within the IETF community (and
in IETF documents).  But I am very skeptical whether any informational RFC will
change anything or have any useful impact, I am also concerned that this WG
could become divisive among the IETF community... polarization has, alas,
become common in the recent years in all fora.

Beside D&I, it is also important on the editorial side to keep a common
terminology with other SDO... so, there are editorial guidelines to be written,
but, again unsure whether a WG is the best place.

Hence my 'ABSTAIN' position in the sense of 'I oppose the creation of a TERM WG
but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the
others'.

On the charter text itself (unchanged from my previous NO RECORD COMMENTS):

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, RFC Editor, 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 and inclusive IETF
community, which is more important.

Regards

-éric

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:37:33 +1000

Updated ballot positions appear to have stopped coming through as emails to the terminology list.

They can all be read at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/history/

(we don't have a wg or wg chairs yet? who does term-chairs go to?)

regards

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 23:23, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> -- 
> Terminology mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:00:51 +0300

Hi,

> Updated ballot positions appear to have stopped coming through as emails to the terminology list.

ADs can pick and choose where ballot emails get sent. I assume some unticked the "term mailing list" checkbox.

> (we don't have a wg or wg chairs yet? who does term-chairs go to?)

We don't have chairs, because we don't have a WG yet. The alias will either go to me or the secretariat, I think.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:03:07 +0300

On 2021-4-12, at 10:00, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The alias will either go to me or the secretariat, I think.

Well, apparently not:

>                   The mail system
> 
> <[email-masked]>: host mail.ietf.org[4.31.198.44] said: 550 5.1.1
>    <[email-masked]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual
>    alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)

This isn't ideal.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:13:01 +1000

Lars

I see that you've just issued a rewritten -04 of the TERM charter, too.

Can notifications to this list please be turned back on.

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 17:01, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:23:41 +0300

Hi,

> Can notifications to this list please be turned back on.

I did email a notification to [email-masked]?

The datatracker doesn't currently seem to do this when a group charter is updated, and there doesn't seem to be an option to make it do so that I see. So this is not something that was either turned off or can be turned on without a code change. I opened https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/3254.

(This is unrelated to some AD ballot emails not having been sent to this list, which is up to the commenting AD to enable or disable when they comment.)

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:57:17 +0000 (UTC)

Our emails crossed.

thanks for raising the ticket -- silently rewriting existing groups' charters could
be a whole new world of mischief.

(I would think, in the interests of transparency, anything record in the history
webpage should be mailed to the lists of those interested/affected.)

Lloyd Wood
[email-masked]

On Monday, 12 April 2021, 20:24:02 GMT+10, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Hi,

Thanks,
Lars