On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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-conduc
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/
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 th
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie 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
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie 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... :)
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
Ted Lemon 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 wh
On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, 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.
I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not pra
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 ch
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, 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
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
I'm I was traveling and not having access to email
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Tim Chown
Responder a:
Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51
Para: ietf
Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
>Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-a
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
