On 31/10/2021 03:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
s/Unprofessional commentary/Uncivil commentary/
Merriam-Webster Online says:
Definition of uncivil
1 : not civilized : barbarous
2 : lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite uncivil remarks
3 : not conducive to civic harmony and welfare
I slept on this and decided that I prefer professional. Civil is to me
more social and less, well, professional. This is about getting the
work done, focussing on technical matters, with reason, logic, avoiding
'ad hominem' and emotional outbursts (as the follow-up e-mails in the
thread may show).
I would consider courteous, respectful, considerate but come back to
professional as the best IMO.
Tom Petch
Regards
Brian Carpenter
Thinking of the IETF standards process: https://xkcd.com/2530/
On 31-Oct-21 13:34, Keith Moore wrote:
Absolutely. That's why I threw together
http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html
<http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html>
in my defence, because every so often I get asked to justify my worth
and existence to some random corporate apparatchik of some random
company who has decided that he (and it's always a he. women just
don't do that whole 'you must justify your right to exist to me'
thing) dislikes my participation in an IETF mailing list.
And that's why it's important to reinforce the idea that IETF
participants are NOT representatives of their employers, but at most
"sponsored" by them (or in many cases they pay their own way), and IETF
participants are expected to use their own best technical judgment about
what's good for the Internet as a whole.
Keith
.
