On Monday, 10 October 2022 at 15:54:15 GMT+11, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I wish we'd try to not use derivatives of the "p" word, as it's entirely > too ambiguous and too easy to use in inappropriate ways. An alternative to not using the "professionalism" word is to define clearly what IETF culture is, what it values, and what it explicitly rejects. Something much more expansive and rigorous than the introductory Tao, with much more emphasis on mailing list interaction, the growth and development of contributors, how to progress, interact, introduce and discuss ideas, when you can safely use "+1", attempts at getting across theory-of-mind concepts to enable you to consider how people react to what they read, etc. Which will be an effort that will take a workgroup to be set up to debate and document it, a la the putative terminology workgroup. And where discussion will be dominated by people far more interested in prescribing other people's human interaction than in doing protocol engineering (think hrpc). Keith, do you really want to inadvertently kick that off by continually objecting to use of term "professionalism"? While also continuing to defend the most singularly unprofessional (racist, bullying) of IETF contributors, which is also another path that I can clearly see leads directly to the reactionary effort I envisage above? L. hmmm, no-one has talked much about googliness culture lately. Cultures change.
