Yes. Building better community muscle around conflict resolution skills
would be a Good Thing. But even if we built that up as an exceptional
organizational strength, it doesn't obviate the need to take more stern
action when behavior crosses lines that materially impacts the work the
IETF does, including behavior that risks driving away entire
demographics from participating.
That's not nitpicking; that's emergency triage.
/a
On 6/12/2024 1:05 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I think that its really hard for the community at large to have opinions,
except for those with this undocumented anecdotal memory. My preoccupation is
that a lot of these behavior isues develop and grow because of the impersonal
nature of public mailing lists and are a lot easier to avoid and resolve with more human
friendly forms of interactions. Still then, they do require fast and good reaction
by others of course (WG-chairs for example). Conflict resolution (training)
might actually not be a bad topic for a WG-chairs lunch. And thats broader and
hence IMHO more useful than nitpicking on the respectively few extreme cases..
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:45:38AM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
On 6/12/2024 12:18 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
How common is it actually that "bad behavior" as discussed here
actually negatively impacted the resulting technical output of the
IETF ?
It is impossible to take inventory of the contributions that would have come
from people who have been pushed away from participating in the IETF by the
hostile actions of bad actors. My intuition is that the IETF has lost
significant input, and that its work output is suffering as a consequence.
/a
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
