| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.general |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Corinne,
For trying to address that imperialism and extend the IETF beyond the English language,
there are some thoughts in:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wood-discussion-beyond-english
and the state of use of and reliance on English in RFCs is also discussed in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal
The IETF requires and uses English for technical discussion in
meetings, in working groups, in working-group documents, and in
anything considered for publication. The requirement for consistent
use of English does simplify immediate communications overhead and
makes for clear discussion of documents in a single language,
although that does also clearly discriminate against, disrespect, and
exclude non-English speakers by being incomprehensible to them.
Commitment to English also disadvantages and is inimical to those
from more diverse backgrounds, who lack fluency in or comfort with
that language, and who must shoulder the long-term burden and
difficulties of added effort in communications.
best
Lloyd Wood
[email protected]
On Sunday, 9 August 2026 at 19:04:40 GMT+10, Corinne Cath <[email protected]> wrote:
Would or would this not be the right moment to bring up the imperialism of having to do RFCs in English to begin with? — and now back to your regular Sunday programming :p
Dr. Corinne Cath
Research Affiliate at the University of Cambridge, Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy
Bluesky: ccs.bsky.social
Mastodon: @[email protected]
W: www.corinnecath.com / www.pitg.network