Hi Dhruv,
I support having good communication and not bad/stupid communication for favoring to having the best-used technologies/discussions in IETF. So good comm meaning progress or simple or giving chances (warnings by yellow card and red card), but bad comm meaning political, or complicated, or long processes with low value.
I hope the moderators to consider that any protocol/technology can be stupid or intelligent, either from the production process-point or from the usage process-point but depends on the technology times and environments. If we get an input from Japan or from a location/culture/country that has very few participants-percentage it is different from an input from USA-participants (which most f2f-meetings of IETF were done in past). In USA they already discussed in the past/public what public-technology was stupid and what was intelligent, and some other new communities are getting starting to discuss it in public. In IETF we need to know that simple-technology can be called stupid or intelligent. However,
When I see your response to messages [2] & [3], I see that IETF system is getting more intelligent (others may think more complicated) to respond and communicate with knowledge, which was not available before in the past/public. Therefore, my request is to consider while evaluating messages' location/culture participation-percentage, because we need more diversity in IETF participation. If one my students in university is saying the same as what was said in [2] & [3], I see it as progress because it was his/her start of discussion about an old technology.
Regarding getting progress in processes and in quality of communication/management or in quality of production/usage, reading those messages that refers to some technology-committee memebrs/managers as stupid of making such decision affecting a public used-technology, can be considered not to be bad-language/bad-communication, because the messages are not within the same process-point. If we can call those message an attack, they were from one usage process-point directed to the production-process point. Any technology_manager/producer should be happy/expecting to get such messages/attacks as long as they are using the media to market their business, and should not use politics within business to reach best/more customers. Therefore, my request is to consider a different method of respond when such messages are not from the same process-point. because we need more management quality/simplicity.
best wishes,
AB
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:18 PM IETF Moderators <moderators@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
We wanted to let the list know that the Moderators team for
ietf@xxxxxxxx (described in more detail at [1]) has been in touch with
Masataka Ohta off-list concerning their recent messages [2][3]. We
encourage everyone to review the IETF discussion list charter [4] and
avoid postings that include uncivil commentary [5].
Thanks,
Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the Moderators team for ietf@xxxxxxxx
[1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mg6pT8Po-QcsB8g6N1z2aFSbqLw/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3z7VZDqvfcuWkVS4eYO1vPLH6KI/
[4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html
[5]
https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/unprofessional-commentary.md
