Equivocation fallacy. On 6/12/24 4:50 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: > Hi John, > > though I'm not a native speaker, I disagree that harassment qualifies > as such only if such actions/behavior happen repeatedly. Harassment can > be instantaneously, esp. sexual harassment. Similarly, the particular > behavior is IMHO qualifying a misogynistic as it it a typical patriarchal pattern to "reduce" women to their appearance (in both > directions). A quite obvious indication is that Timothy's reply would > not have been the same if a man would have written what Corinne wrote. > Luckily, times have changed and such a behavior is absolutely not > acceptable anymore. > > Regards, > Roland > > On 11.06.24 at 20:52 John C Klensin wrote: >> (apologies for using the Last Call list for this but, given other >> comments, it seems like the right place) >> >> --On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 08:06 +1200 Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I originally refrained from an opinion on this, since only one >>> objectionable message was cited, and as I already stated, >> [...] >> >> For reasons that might have overlapped with Brian's -- but different >> because I have intermittently noticed Tim's on-list behavior patterns >> for some years -- I agree that this particular PR-action is >> appropriate and perhaps even overdue. I wrote a note to the IESG to >> that effect right after the Last Call announcement. However, the >> draft explanation that came with the Last Call, strongly reinforced >> by many of the comments in this thread (and the L2 one), have left me >> very concerned about a more general issue and risk. >> >> The Code of Conduct requires that we all speak, write, and act >> professionally. That is, IMO, particularly important in discussions >> about revoking posting rights or the underlying behaviors. The >> rather careful language and procedures of RFC 3683 are not so much to >> protect offenders at they are to protect the IETF and its reputation >> from accusations that we are forcing people out of our discussions >> because of their views or because the leadership doesn't like them. >> >> So, in this case and any that follow in the future, I hope that we >> can be extremely careful about our vocabulary and any specific >> explanations that are given in a situation like this. In >> particular, and using the IESG's language as an example, it seems to >> me that there is no question that the posting was unprofessional, >> inappropriate, obnoxious, and several other terms we could use. Many >> of Tim's earlier postings to an assortment of IETF list clearly (at >> least IMO) illustrate a continuing pattern of abuse and are, at least >> cumulatively, disruptive (the criteria identified in RFC 3638/ BCP >> 83. >> >> However, I can see nothing in that particular note that constitutes >> harassment as that term is usually understood. Harassment, as >> usually defined, requires repeated, continuing, and/or regular >> behavior and one message doesn't do that (the situation in >> combination with a more recent message or two might meet that test, >> but those messages were still in the future when the IESG posted the >> Last Call announcement). >> >> Similarly, I can find nothing in the problematic posting that is >> inherently misogynistic. It it were, than a statement by an IETF >> participant (or any gender) that they found another IETF participant >> (or any gender) attractive would constitute hating personals of the >> latter gender, whether they expressed a desire to follow up on the >> attraction or not. Again, unprofessional and obnoxious if posted to >> a public list and probably harassment if the comment and "invitation" >> where made repeatedly without any sign of interest (or indications of >> disinterest) from the target party, but "misogynistic" is quite a >> stretch. >> >> So, while I support the PR-action and believe it is entirely >> justified based on a regular pattern of behavior and at least some >> signs of disrupting the IETF's processes, I wish we could be much >> more careful about the specific accusations we make and language we >> use -- even more in the future and for the next case as to this >> particular one. If we start, even in principle, considering a single >> unprofessional and obnoxious note justification for a PR-action on >> the basis of conclusions that are not obvious from that note, the >> IETF's reputation is at risk long term. >> >> 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 >> appropriate to leave the decision of whether the advantages of the >> latter outweigh the disadvantages of having to put up with the former >> up to each WG and its leadership. We might tune things to let WGs >> opt out of a ban rather than requiring them to opt in, but let's not >> eliminate the option. >> >> john >> >> >> >> > -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
