> On 28 Oct 2022, at 04:19, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In my conversations with IESG members after his drafts were censored, it appeared to me that most of those on IESG simply did not recognize his documents as satire. So the opportunity to make timely specific and constructive feedback (e.g. "please don't use satire; it's too easily misunderstood") might have been missed. the onus is not on the readers, but on the writer. it's very difficult to recognize poor writing as anything more than poor writing -- and a better writer would not have written those drafts. there is no requirement to provide constructive feedback on a draft. But removing those drafts promptly provided clear feedback, and it was constructive. > The other is when people react to a message that they don't understand, by assuming bad intent. A bully claiming to use satire is still a bully. I think Dan's intent has been clear for years. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
