> On 9 Jun 2022, at 14:57, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/9/22 07:40, Jay Daley wrote: >>> I think the problems arise when almost any attempt to be >>> critical is interpreted as being at least disrespectful even if >>> not actually rude. >>> >> That’s certainly a problem to watch out for along with other blatant abuses of power. >> >> In my experience though, that is rare and what is far more common is a situation that begins with someone being both critical and rude at the same time, and then descends into a downward spiral of people talking across each other - one group for whom the rudeness is the main issue and and one group for whom the criticism is the main issue. I often see those in the latter group interpreting any admonishment for the rudeness as targeting for being critical and therefore an abuse of power. >> > Some people take any kind of criticism of what they think is important, as rudeness. > > And some people will use any tactic to shoot down a person or an idea that they don't like, including accusing the person advocating that idea of rudeness. Both true but both much, much rarer than people responding to genuine rudeness. > It's not that people can never be rude (they can), or that rudeness is a good thing (it's not). But much of what people call rudeness is subjective and arbitrary. If people can be shut down for rudeness, that inherently stifles a robust dialog aimed at discovering technical truth. The counterpoint to that is "If people are not shut down for rudeness, that inherently stifles an open dialog …" > And that's why vague rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization. " … And that’s why no rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization." Are we therefore agreed that both "no rules" and "vague rules" are bad, or did you mean that rudeness is too subjective to be defined in a non-vague way? Jay > > Keith > > > > > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
