It is in fairly basic dictionaries:
1-b (2)
So, I could harass you by constantly asking questions about automobiles. But I could also do it by saying something very offensive once.
thanks,
Rob
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 1:15 PM Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
