On 10/27/22 18:39, Lloyd W wrote:
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.
Disagree. Effective communication is always a shared responsibility
between sender and receiver, but especially so when the receiver claims
offense or makes some accusation based on the message.
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.
Emphatically disagree, but I'm not going to re-iterate arguments here
that were already made elsewhere.
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.
Name calling is always inappropriate in IETF.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
