On 10/26/22 18:15, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Maybe we don't often have the need to use that convention in IETF very often, or at least, haven't needed it much until the past few years.So while I understand and accept the argument that we shouldn't use satire or sarcasm in IETF, I think it will take time for English speakers who are accustomed to that convention, to learn to not respond to such arguments in the conventional way.
IMO the above is not correct. A tiny tiny proportion of
IETF emails I've read (and I've read a lot) contain any
satire or sarcasm. Almost everyone has learned to not do
that already, years ago, without having to be told or get
training, perhaps largely because it's utterly obvious.
And for what it's worth, I will quite sincerely say that "don't use satire" hasn't been obvious to me. What has been obvious is that many people in IETF believe that they have the right to impose rules on others' speech without those rules being explicit. This is a disturbing, and discriminatory, trend that I believe is doing tremendous harm to IETF's ability to function. IMO that trend is far worse than people sometimes using less-than-ideal language.
It's possible to disagree with or not be satisfied by
the proposed PR-action but better to not bring in any
counterfactual propositions while doing so.
I don't think it's counterfactual, and I believe it's at least tangentially relevant.
Keith
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
