Subject: [Terminology] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on charter-ietf-term-00-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:19:51 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-07: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[No really changing my position as it is based not on the charter itself but
more about forming a WG around this topic]

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.

Moreover, even if this potential WG publishes documents, let's not declare
victory and let's not wash our hand of the real problem.

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 (updated):

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

s/The output of this WG will provide guidance to IETF participants/The output
of this WG, if published, will provide guidance to IETF participants/ ,i.e., a
WGLC should not be enough.

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

Regards

-éric