Subject: [Terminology] Robert Wilton's Yes on charter-ietf-term-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:25:02 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-03: Yes

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

I don't know if a WG is the perfect way to achieve the required outcome, but
that was the consensus decision of the gendispatch process and the idea of
punting this issue to the RFC editor was discussed and dismissed.  We have been
discussing this for at least 9 months, and I think that changing tack and
starting down a different path now will not go anywhere useful.  I.e., perfect
is the enemy of good.

I also believe that most IETF participants wish to focus on producing technical
standards, and are happy to use language that doesn't accidentally cause
offense, and are either supportive or agnostic to the IETF providing guidance
on what language should be used.

I hope that the members of the community who have concerns work constructively
to try and find a consensus position within the TERM WG.

I support the chartering of this WG.