I think rude or other behavior can/is defined by groups in public or private, it just needs a manager and a policy, which makes a real system alive. I don't believe in RFC until there is a real system to follow it, so we need to check if there is a real system or if we are measuring its performance per time.
Best Wishes,
AB
On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>
>
