ISO Guidance on inclusive language

[PeterParslow]

Put in place ISO/TC 211 guidance and process to ensure projects follow https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100492.html Guidance on the use of inclusive terminology in ISO and IEC documents

[JanHjelmager]

To be discussed at a PMG meeting, either a midterm (virtual) or the meeting in Wuhan (hybrid).

The guidence document could also be of interest for the TMG.

[ReesePlews]

hello @PeterParslow and @JanHjelmager, thank you for the discussion.

i am a member of the IEC/SMB JAG on Inclusive Terminology group which drafted the guidance rules, and have participated in their meetings since the group's inception. now that the guidance rules were published, the group continues to meet periodically to answer questions and perform maintenance.

while i do not agree with a few of the findings/submissions of the JAG group, the work is quite important and perhaps more so is the awareness/importance of this topic for our officers (WG/AG/AHG convenors/leaders), project leaders (PLs), editors (EDs) and PT members during their project work.

as TMG convenor i have already discussed the work of the JAG and my participation in past TMG meetings. i most recently presented the JAG report during the TMG meeting at the TC211 59th Plenary Meeting in Sydney (2024-11). my report, available in N6096, contains the same link Peter listed above.

in my investigations before the JAG's work started i knew of only two examples (in one document) [ed: and one figure in another document] which can be thought of as being gendered. at the time (a few years back) the PL and myself petitioned to the ISO/CS EPM that the usage should not be changed. i suspect now with this guidance document in-place and how these rules will be "advanced" into the next edition of DIR2, our usage will most likely be removed at the time when our document is next revised.

however, what concerns me more is, when the terminology entry with the gendered usage is used by reference in another document's terminology clause then the ISO/CS EPM could very well edit out that usage to conform to the JAG's guidance rules.

those type of actions (changing terminological entries used only by reference in a new/revised document which does not "own" those entries) by the ISO/CS EPM introduces conflicting (changed) entries into the TC211 terminology repository.

i hope that will not happen but we have already seen minor editorial revisions in current projects that use a terminology entry by reference. most of these editorial revisions have been to notes or examples so i dont complain outright but it cannot be allowed on a term or definition until the authoritative source document is revised. during such a revision, the discussion topic would be changed and it would be up to the PL/ED and TMG to elevate such a discussion to the ISO/CS EPM.

i dont really expect such things to happen in our activities. the focus of our documents/work is different, and in my opinion they are all gender neutral. however if you have looked at the guidance document and supplemental list of terms the TC officers, PLs/EDs, liaisons (and their joint projects) and members need to be aware of this and be vigilant that we do not using terminology that poses a problem. we are not only talking about clause 3 terminology but in all deliverables produced by the TC.

i look forward to any discussion in the PMG on this topic. if the PMG members feel "contentious" terminology could still be "lurking" in our documents i could investigate this more and/or reach out to the ISO/CS EPM and see if ISO/CS have perhaps compiled a list of occurrences per document.

Jan please let me know if you need something to be prepared for the March 26 meeting.

[PeterParslow]

PMG should remember that the ISO Guidance applies to all the text, not just the terminology entries.
I very much agree with Reese that documents which "import" a term should not mess with its definition!

[JanHjelmager]

I am very much aware of that. Still I think the issue should be raised at a PMG meeting to discuss if we need some changes in our best practice.

I also agree with both of you that TC211 should not mess with imported terms. A stand point I have had all my time in TC211.

[ReesePlews]

hello Peter, Jan, thank you for the comments.

yes we should mention this topic during the PMG interim meeting and if based on feedback from the PMG members at that time, probably better to discuss it again in the PMG meeting during the May plenary week.

as long as the officers and members know about this, we can be vigilant and probably catch terminology before it is used in the documents or during our balloting checks.

thank you

[JanHjelmager]

Just before Reeses latest input in the discussion, I came to a almost similar conclusion. To have an initial discussion during the March virtual meeting, and depending on the outcome of that discussion perhaps have a in depth discussion during the plenary week.

[ReesePlews]

very good idea Jan, let me know what you need from me (slides, etc) before the March meeting. thank you!