Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour on this list? Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago... Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other posters, whether new or veteran. Tim
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
I'm I was traveling and not having access to email Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Responder a: t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51 Para: ietf ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?) Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour on this list? Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago... Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other posters, whether new or veteran. Tim ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
FWIW, if we are going to go down that road, it would be worth noting that there are various kinds of rudeness that can occur on IETF mailing lists. To my mind, the most harmful of these is not outright rudeness. Outright rudeness is to be avoided, certainly. But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed discussion points raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly harmful to discourse on the ietf mailing list. This exchange between l.wood and Abdussalam Baryun pales in comparison. Furthermore, I would also point out that criticism of someone's behavior is not rudeness, if that criticism is accurate. I don't think the IETF should be a context in which people ought to feel safe in behaving badly, as long as they behave badly in ways that are subtle enough not to be considered impolite. Nor should it be a context in which failure to behave according to some culturally-relative standard of politeness in itself invalidates an otherwise valid statement.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed discussion points raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly harmful to discourse on the ietf mailing list. IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude. Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant- at-arms's. Melinda
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance, which, well intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it harder to evaluate consensus. But sure, the responsible AD could also intervene.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance, +1 Alas, that statement applies to both posts which raise issues and posts which refute issues. which, well intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it harder to evaluate consensus. I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. For better or worse, current RFCs in standards track have boilerplate saying This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community... Unless and until this boilerplate changes, IESG members have an obligation to try to decide whether that statement is true. I'm _very_ glad I don't have that obligation! -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. Yes. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I'll add the message from Scott Brim below and comment. At 10:20 27-08-2013, Scott Brim wrote: IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. The shepherd would have to request PR-action on the grounds that there has been a BCP violation. That would cause other process issues. The community will remain quiet and the shepherd will take the fall. At 12:08 27-08-2013, John Leslie wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Me too. Regards, S. Moonesamy
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Lesliej...@jlc.net wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :) See the message I just posted. Yes, the additional repetitions make it take longer, but really it's not so hard to say, Yep, that's already on my list of issues and toss the repetitious message aside. On 8/27/13 12:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. On 8/27/13 12:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude. Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant- at-arms's. Yeah, again, that's me. Also see my recent message. That said, I do wish it didn't take intervention on my part. I wish people would realize they're being repetitive. I wish people would stop responding to the repetition. (Neither is going to change my opinion of the consensus.) But then again, I also wish I had a pony. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm. I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the 'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap designed to gull the WG into agreeing that they know nothing about the problem whereupon the original proposer will gladly provide the poor naifs with their pearls of wisdom. The correct response in such situations is in my book, 'you may speak for yourself and your own level of expertise but do not accuse others of sharing your inabilities'. I also find it very rude when people try to cut short a discussion with recourse to bogus points of processor try to trump a discussion with recourse to an authority that I know from private conversations to hold the exact opposite opinion to the one being attributed to them. What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic. But what I found worst was the fact that nobody seemed to be taking any notice at all of the four women who raised diversity issues at the mic in Orlando until I got up to the mic and mansplained the issue for you all.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Hi Phillip, At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic. I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis During the discussions (see thread at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00201.html )about the draft it was suggested there should be consequences of not following the code of conduct. What action would you suggest against: (i) the Area Director in a case such as the above? (ii) the Working Group chair in a case such as the above? Regards, S. Moonesamy
