On 4/6/21 11:48 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
Let me just suggest for now that if the SAAs find some language "unprofessional" then there's probably a more specific reason that they could cite that would provide better feedback to the author. And if the SAAs can't find a more specific reason for labeling something "unprofessional", maybe they should reconsider it.
I'm not arguing with your point (nor am I agreeing with it); I'm just saying that you're directing it to the wrong people. The SAA have been asked to do a job by the IETF (the whole IETF, as a consensus position), and it's unseemly to dress them down for doing it. If you want the job to change, then work to change the job description. Asking the SAA to selectively ignore parts of the job description based on individual input is risky: I would just as much object to someone suggesting that the SAA ignore the "and represents a pattern of abuse" portion of their job description so as to start instituting mailing list bans based on a single message.
Ok, I didn't think I was asking you to do anything that contradicted RFC 3005 and I understand that any change to the actual language requires IETF Consensus. I do think, however, that since the document you referred to [1] explicitly says that "unprofessional commentary is not further described in RFC 3005", and also that the specific criteria for "unprofessional commentary" in [1] are the opinions of the sergeant-at-arms team [*], it's reasonable to try to make constructive suggestions for better interpretations of the term "unprofessional commentary" until RFC 3005 can be updated. So please interpret my comments as attempts at constructive suggestions.
thanks,
Keith
[1]
https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/unprofessional-commentary.md
[*] Despite one non-SAA having committed a change to that document.
