Subject: RE: English skills for IETF participants

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 17:50:29 +0800

After reading this whitepaper,  I thought it might be a good idea to have many example documents about different categories, like:
1) problem statement
2) use cases
3) requirements
4) protocol spec.
5) deployment
6) iana consideration
7) security section
 et al..
 
-Hui
 
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:19:58 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: English skills for IETF participants
CC: [email-masked]

  

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    Hash: SHA1

    For folks with continued interest in this topic, you might enjoy
    this white paper:

    EDANZ WHITE PAPER: Innovating the Authorship Experience -
<http://www.edanzediting.com/sites/all/files/Edanz-white-paper_0.pdf>

    "We examine the difficulties ESL (English as a second language)
    authors face when trying to publish their results in peer-reviewed
    journals. Our findings are largely based on data from surveys
    conducted on DXY and ScienceNet.cn, the two leading portals for
    China’s research community. The survey results confirm there are
    major barriers for ESL authors, supporting our insights from 18
    years of first-hand experience working with these communities."

    It's not 100% applicable to RFCs, but there is some interesting
    material we might consider.

    - -Heather

    On 8/26/14, 4:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    > Following up...

      > I have now posted the RFC Editor's tips document that was

      > mentioned in Toronto to the EDU wiki:

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/attachment/wiki/IETF90/RFC-writing-tips.pdf?format=raw

      > However, perhaps there is an active WG Chair who would like
      to

      > open a new page on the WG Chair's wiki for this whole topic?

      > I don't have editing rights on that wiki.

      >    Brian

      > On 08/08/2014 15:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

      >> Hi,

      >> These are some collected thoughts following the WG Chairs
      lunch session

      >> at IETF 90 and related emails. They have no particular
      authority, but

      >> it does seem that some follow-up is needed. Discussion is
      invited here;

      >> I expect the EDU team will stay involved too.

      >> 1. There are issues in both spoken and written English
      and they concern

      >> both native English speakers and participants from other
      languages and

      >> cultures.

      >> 2. The range of issues includes:

      >> - Drafts with incorrect English;

      >> - Drafts with correct English that is subtle, obscure or
      complicated, and

      >>   therefore hard to understand;

      >> - Speech or email using slang, jokes or cultural
      references;

      >> - Similar problems with slides;

      >> - Speakers with poor English, strong accents (native or
      foreign), speaking

      >>   too fast or bad microphone technique.

      >> 3. Language editing sessions (run by RFC Editor team) can
      help but are resource-

      >> intensive with much verbal feedback. Suggestions include:

      >> – Separate drafts into categories (protocol specs require
      different language

      >>   than deployment considerations or implementation
      guidance);

      >> – Offer general tips (resources for writing clear
      English);

      >> – Provide guidance on how to prepare for these sessions.

      >> Also it is necessary to clarify responsibility: authors
      ask

      >> "What do I need to do?" but reviewers ask "Where do you
      need help?".

      >> 4. WG Chairs and document shepherds have a responsibility
      to flag

      >> language issues in drafts and resolve them early. Leaving
      it until Last Call

      >> or IESG is really too late.

      >> 5. Shepherd has a responsibility to help when editors and
      authors try to

      >> find a technically correct and grammatically accurate
      phrase.

      >> 6. Possible actions:

      >> - Run more joint editing sessions (involve document
      shepherds, not ADs);

      >> - Make use of RFC Production Center (RPC) staff at IETF
      meetings;

      >> - Have RPC provide an on-line "writing lab" for authors
      with specific

      >>   phrasing questions; and/or set up a mailing list for
      English language

      >>   questions;

      >> - Encourage early reviews and editing (this has proved
      difficult so far);

      >> - Peer to peer mode (A non-native English co-author could
      ask for help on

      >>   language from a reviewer. WG chairs or shepherd could
      help to find such

      >>   reviewers.);

      >> - Therefore, assign shepherds or even co-editors early;

      >> - Market "style sheet that describes common grammar
      mistakes and offers

      >>   tips on common mistakes" (Hmm, RFC Editor: I can't seem
      to find this

      >>   on your web site, so it's hard to market...);

      >> - FAQ on use of English on the WG Chairs wiki (is that
      the same thing?);

      >> - Tools (equivalent to the MS Word grammar checker);

      >> - WG chairs pay attention to microphone technique, rapid
      speech, too

      >>   much slang, etc.;

      >> - WG chairs should review slides in advance;

      >> - Choose speaker for a presentation carefully;

      >> - Choose note-takers carefully;

      >> - Encourage questions by jabber or email if questioner
      has poor spoken English;

      >> - Add relevant material to the Tao of the IETF;

      >> - Contract with companies doing EFL review;

      >> - Encourage non-English discussion lists for preparatory
      work;

      >> Regards

      >>     Brian

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

    Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAJoeAAoJEER/xjINbZoGwBQH/3icbRJgWlCQF9kdt5kXLPB6

    7f2Yzcn0z+gpANoywJy4KT833vQuhd0KrytOuL98FANEoVdLoHvW+y/SlPvULqbN

    4Kkc9kgygWWwxTea8g+zuVBEVtadt5dz0mwOaRAHv+QQvkpgXlDK5HJB8wKCrniI

    LUpdRqOHg232OrCI+J0XmNuz1SzCUNXLfFisbYbtkMCV6kkPG2Hyzkjpkz2kdo1E

    8QPvtrKiexoNMf31Bkn6+a3FYY7sMenpuZScMUFLAjx/xjUPXyDJrsvaltDK1D72

    ePf1nvn3wqcGdZI1DRcDXiJAPItRim3csV5Tmx8+l9/YV3Trwx4LU2i8ZYmuqTg=

    =5WWz

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----