[All Lists] [By Thread] [By Date] [Previous] [Next]
From: R. Feldman
Subject: Token naming and cultural bias
Date: 29 Av 5782
The chair would note that Devorah has identified the core issue.
We are not debating token names. We are debating governance. Who publishes the baseline registry? Whose terms become the default that others reference?
The specification already allows multiple registries. The question is whether the DEP Working Group should modify its baseline registry to address the concerns raised, and if so, how.
I have heard the following positions:
1. R. Nachmani proposes comprehensive inclusion of terms from multiple traditions. 2. Ben-Ari raises concerns about equivalence relationships encoding hierarchy. 3. Rav Halevi notes that technical infrastructure determines whose registries propagate. 4. R. Kovacs suggests that any solution will be imperfect, and we should seek "neutral enough." 5. The Rebbetzin notes that English itself is a non-neutral choice. 6. Devorah notes that her implementation is agnostic to these debates.
Perhaps we could proceed with a modest acknowledgment in the registry documentation, noting that token names reflect the working group's composition and should not be read as normative.
—Yaakov Feldman, Chair
Thread: