--On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 15:49 -0400 Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let me just comment on this one point: > > On 6/11/24 14:52, John C Klensin wrote: >> And, btw, I think we need to be very careful about proposals for >> blanket bans as well. We have several examples in the history of >> the IETF of people who have regularly been unprofessional, >> obnoxious, and disruptive but who have still made important >> technical contributions, maybe ones that no one else could have >> made. I think it is entirely > Maybe the objectionable party is very capable. But how many other > people who are at least as capable have been deterred from taking > part because of their objectionable behavior? The IETF likes to > think of itself as inclusive but - as somebody else suggested - it > really isn't. And how many have been deterred from participating because of how the IETF does (or does not) handle objectionable behavior and handle it in a clear, consistent, and, where appropriate, well-explained and well-documented way? I don't know, but I think it, along with your question, is important to consider, as is the observation that taking too long to respond may be nearly as bad (or worse) than not responding at all. I've made that point about inclusivity and its interaction with some of our practices, including things that tend to drive people off, several times, to no effect so far. > "unprofessional, obnoxious, and disruptive" behavior is just that > and should not be tolerated. Otherwise you're just going to have an > organization of people who think it's fine to act that way or at > least aren't prepared to deal with it. Agreed. Strongly. I'm just arguing that we need to be careful about documenting that sort of behavior as such rather than leveling accusations that may be far more controversial than those three terms _and_ that either we need to be consistent about what we tolerate or to have clear explanations of the differences/ boundaries. > We've already had people saying they automatically delete this > persons posts - so exactly what value is that person bringing to > the organization? Those are individual decisions over which the IETF has no control. "Some people do it" is not the whole organization. More important, if I correctly understand what you are suggesting, I don't think it follows. On one hand, if just about everyone is ignoring (or automatically deleting) the posts, then little harm is being done, the behavior is not disruptive, and the only costs the problem individual is imposing is whatever it costs IETF participants to do the ignoring/ blocking/ deleting. On the other, if even a few people consider those posts worth watching and the problem individual says something interesting and profound, there will almost certainly be a reply that includes or points to that posting and the interesting and profound observation will be available to interested participants on that mailing list, including those who are deleting that problem person's messages. We could probably have an interesting philosophical discussion about the appropriateness of people expecting others to evaluate messages for them but, I hope, not this week and not on this list. best, john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
