That is not the legal definition of harassment: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass#legalDictionary On 6/12/24 1:27 PM, Rob Sayre wrote: > It is in fairly basic dictionaries: > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass > > 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 >> > -- 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
