Yes, we use "rude" in email. Yes, the documents use "professional
or "unprofessional" to which you have objected. So proposed better
wording. Just saying "do not limit things that way" does not help us
get to a state that works better for the community.
Yours,
Joel
PS: I recognize that there have been some (we can debate how often)
abuses of these rules to suppress dissent. I agree that is also very
bad for the community.
On 6/11/2022 7:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 6/11/22 18:12, Joel Halpern wrote:
If I am reading your email correctly, most of your concern is about
the vague definition and vague applicaiton of "rude".
As far as I know, the terms of reference use terms like "personal
attack" and other descriptions which are much less vague. We tend to
use "rude" as the shorthand for the discussions of the topic rather
than reciting the defintions and descriptions in the RFCs.
Do you see the RFCs referring to "rude"?
I'm mostly responding to Jay here. But the RFCs use derivatives of
"[un]professional" which are equally problematic.
Keith
