Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, whatever the intent.
I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that
concept of "offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's
appropriate, because quite often I find that people have strong
adverse reactions to things that need to be discussed, but they
can't get past their reactions to see them.
FWIW, I found the "Les White" drafts pretty offensive, and unprofessional, even if I could discern a satirical aspect.
I wish we'd stop using the word "unprofessional" because it's
such an ambiguous word. I've heard people accused of being
"unprofessional" because they wore a hairstyle that made sense for
the kind of hair their bodies grow; I've heard people called
"unprofessional" because they dressed in clothes from their own
cultures (even though there was no prescribed dress code). I've
heard people accused of being "unprofessional" because they
respectfully expressed technical disagreements with their bosses.
I've heard people described as unprofessional because they weren't
herd creatures - they had different ideas than those of their
colleagues. So I've come to think of "professional" as just
another kind of arbitrary prejudice that we'd be better without,
an excuse to harass people who think differently.
So I wish we'd stop trying to make IETF "professional" (at least
in those senses) - I think it impairs our ability to understand
this hugely complex system that we've created, impairs our ability
to function as responsible engineers.
But if we're going to use the word, we need to define what it
means for IETF. For IETF, professional should mean things like
treating our fellow participants with respect, but NOT expecting
people to accept ideas and proposals without question.
Professional for IETF should mean making a genuine effort to
contribute to consensus if at all possible, but without expecting
people to buy into whatever proposal the "right" people are
supporting. It should mean letting leaders do their jobs in
managing process, but also being able to question their actions,
and treating them like peers in technical discussions.
Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean acting like
people are expected to act in corporate environments.
Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean never making
people uncomfortable. Willingness to be uncomfortable is a
necessary condition to do this work. This is not because people
should try to make others uncomfortable for no good reason, but
because trying to wrap your head around someone else's mindset
to see why you might disagree and how perhaps to craft a
compromise is inherently uncomfortable.
I remember the first IETF meeting I attended, in St. Louis circa 1990. I was a starving graduate student who showed up because friends encouraged me to go and paid for my expenses. I got to the hotel where the conference was being held and realized that I hadn't even thought about what to wear - I was wearing the t-shirt and shorts that I normally wore around campus. I wandered through the hotel looking for where the conference might be and discovered a large group mostly wearing t-shirts and shorts, and realized I was in the right place (in more ways than one).
IETF has always shunned the trappings of professionalism, much to
its benefit. It's survival as an effective organization depends
on this.
Keith
