Barry,
Your note underscored the lack of interest in engaging in discussion of
the original substance to my posting. So I will of course drop further
attempts at improving the working group's documentation effort.
However your note also underscored a basic misunderstanding in rules,
process, and professional conduct. I think that the working group
archive needs to include a counter, lest the casual reader think that
you note was a constructive exercise in authority.
On 1/31/2022 10:15 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
2. Your 'for the sake of' is uncalled for and dismissive. Please stop
doing that. Attempts to be dismissive are a popular debating
technique in the IETF, but they are counter-productive, as well as
unprofessional.
Two things here:
First, please do not admonish participants for their behaviour: that's
for the chairs to do, and you should feel free to call things out to
us privately. It's too easy for discussions to degenerate when we
move them away from the technical arguments.
First, there is no rule requiring that someone, who is being mistreated
publicly, is prohibited from responding publicly.
Nor should there be.
The IETF has a long track record of handling mistreatment slowly and
poorly, or not at all. The current case is merely one more example.
Over time, the more grotesque examples of mistreatment have reduced,
though they have far from disappeared. What has remained is permission
to ignore the substance of what is said, to dismiss it out of hand, or
to misrepresent it cavalierly.
This leaves IETF discussion groups as distinctly friendly to markedly
unprofessional conduct. The best that can be said about changes over
time is that conduct has generally moved from gross, direct, personal
attacks, to passive aggressive attacks.
In practical terms this leaves the target of the misbehavior on their own.
Second, the chairs don't find Scott's comment to be at all dismissive,
as the "for the sake of" sentence needs to be taken in the context of
the subsequent sentence that explains that Scott doesn't think you've
given a suitable rationale for the proposed change.
Taking his subsequent sentence is pretty much irrelevant. It does not
establish context, since the real context is established by the note he
was responding to, which you do not cite.
It is one thing to disagree with the the reasons I offered in that
original note, but quite another to pretend none were provided.
Casting his characterization of my proposal as 'uncalled for and
dismissive' was precise, accurate and, frankly, restrained. It simply is
not professional to treat a participant disrespectfully like he did. A
view that it is not disrespectful, again, underscores the systemic
problem here. It creates a hostile work environment that discourages
others from participating.
It's also striking that my opinion of 'uncalled for and dismissive' is
of more concern to you than his misrepresentation of fact.
Rather, you are demanding justifications such as hard data to support
opinions... the sort of hard data that you, yourself are not providing
to support your own opinions. We see *that* as being dismissive and
unhelpful in progressing the discussion.
Since you offer no specific examples, I'm left to guess what you are
referring to. Tsk.
Perhaps you meant my asking Levine to explain his tautology that a PSD
can't be an Organizational Domain?
Perhaps you meant my taking exception to the circular logic Kitterman used?
Perhaps it is my asking for detail, where broad assertions are made?
But, again, I really don't know what 'hard data' I might have provided,
but didn't, nor what hard data I was 'demanding'. I suppose it would be
indelicate to 'demand' that you provide hard data of my
unreasonableness. So, I won't.
1. For this topic, they are irrelevant. There is nothing in the
charter that says terminology must be preserved. Interoperability is
not endangered by changes in terminology.
My opinion is that interoperability might well be endangered by
changes in terminology, if it results in older and newer
implementations differing in how they handle things based on those
differences in terminology. To the point at hand, though, that
opinion seems to be what Scott and John are also raising, and which
you are dismissing.
Sure. And while you clearly intended that paragraph to be relevant, it
isn't. Remember your interest in context? You ignored that here. Too.
First my language was not nearly as generic as you imply.
Second, the premise is that the term "Organizational Domain" is
inextricably tied to a fine-grained technical definition, and that it
has such deeply ingrained, established use, as to be dangerous to
modify. Except that premise is an assumption, not a demonstrated fact.
It's not that the basic concern is unreasonable. It's that the flat
assertion of serious danger is unfounded.
And they nicely ignored my attempts to distinguish the role of the term
in DMARC, from the algorithmic details (that they are in the process of
changing.) That is, the what from the how. As you have also done.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
