On 6/15/22 5:37 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote on 14/06/2022 23:37:
On 15-Jun-22 02:47, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
On the other hand, is it really a negative when someone is snarky
with a
snot-nosed kid who doesn't appreciate being told that their "great new
idea" is a retread of something folks learned not to do decades ago?
Depends. If your goal is to make sure nobody new ever comes to the
IETF, sure, do that.
On the other hand, if someone new goes to the effort to write up an
I-D and ask us
to look at it, there are a lot better ways to see if you can
redirect their interest
to something that might be useful. Sometimes they may go off in a
sulk, but sometimes
a little politeness and specific references to prior work they
should read about can
go a long way.
I think it is also a very effective sieve. Newcomers who respond
positively
to this are much more likely to become genuine contributors than people
who won't listen and learn. The ones who don't listen are unlikely to
succeed anyway.
Brian, John,
thank you for speaking up for the values of courtesy and politeness.
The freedom to be "snarky with a snot-nosed kid" also includes the
freedom not to be snarky
Yes, of course it does. But that works both ways. The freedom to take
personal offense
at criticism of one's ideas includes the freedom to not take personal
offense at criticism
of one's ideas. So instead of walking away upset at "pissy greybeards"
who didn't like an
idea consider that maybe, just maybe, they had a point even if it was
articulated in a
terse manner that you're not used to hearing from your university advisor.
So instead of trying to define (and curtail) "rudeness", why don't we
try some real tolerance
all around: don't assume the worst in others and give people a break
when you encounter
some behavior that irks you.
Dan.
--
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
