ietf / terminology Goto Github PK

This is just a FYI issue to notify that you were added to the curated awesome-humane-tech in the 'Inclusion' category, and - if you like that - are now entitled to wear our badge:

By adding this to the README:

[![Awesome Humane Tech](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech/main/humane-tech-badge.svg?sanitize=true)](https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech)

https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech

https://github.com/NTAP/isb-ietf-config contains a configuration file for in-solidarity-bot that flags the terms in the README of this repo.

Would it make sense to merge that config (and the instructions) here, or is standalone preferred?

Here's a list that could be added: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/resources/

The repository has no description text or labels. It will show up in /stars list as just "terminology" (therefore I have not starred yet).

Also without topics most people will not find the repo. Some suggestions to add: inclusion, inclusiveness, inclusivity, terminology, diversity, ietf, internet-draft, etc.

Also, shouldn't there be a LICENSE?

To uncrewed. From NTAP/isb-ietf-config#7.

An old one that I recall in the IBM style guide from 30 years ago.
Please consider offering "not valid".

https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html.

It's a link, but also could elaborate some relevant terms in the tabled list, too.

Transferred from NTAP/isb-ietf-config#11

This seems pretty clear ableist language in some usage. I recently removed the word "blind" from a document with no replacement; it was being used alongside a good definition of what was really meant. That is often more appropriate than finding a replacement.

However, we might need to offer the crypto people a better name for "blind signatures" and "blinding". "Masking" might be less contentious here, or maybe using the name of the inventor ("Chaum signatures" perhaps).

See #6 and #5. This word also appears on the list cited by #15.

It would be nice to be able to download all this in a JSON block so we can do automated searches in code bases

e.g.

{
  "whitelist": ["allowlist", "approved list", "pass list", "accept list", "permitted"],
  "blacklist": ["blocklist", "denylist", "unapproved list", "reject list", "refused", "prohibited"],
}

In order to allow building various tooling against this terminology list, it would be very useful if the canonical format would be JSON or some other format that is more structured than Markdown.

A Markdown or HTML representation can then easily and automatically be generated for human consumption, e.g, via GitHub actions.

Should this be enabled? See #28.

I'm seeing errors like this.

The organization has a .github repository that matches the one here, so I can't see why this would fail as it does. @quicwg has the same repository with no failures, so maybe this is down to bot configuration.

cc @dschinazi (as I don't have access to the org)