On 25/02/2014 06:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> At 20:40 21-02-2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> One difficulty is that what is "unwanted" is very sensitive
>> to cultural and linguistic subtleties. Also, if (for example) I
>> were to repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's
>> IETF work, or even syntax errors in their English, where is the
>> line between legitimate discussion and review and objectionable
>> harassment?
>
> I am responding to the above as it is one of the difficulties
> encountered in an interaction with another person.
>
> If you repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's work, that
> person might perceive that as victimization. I'd say try and keep it
> impersonal as far as possible. It is better to avoid point out too many
> syntax errors if you are not sure whether the person uses English as a
> first language.
Of course. My point was that it's hard to define a precise boundary between
legitimate critical discussion and mild harassment, and we need to be sensitive
to that in the text. It's more important to have a process that deals
effectively with *serious* and highly unpleasant behaviours that we clearly
should not tolerate.
Brian
>
> I'll separate legitimate discussion and review. In the review you can
> easily point out the substantive errors or syntax errors. I am not sure
> how to explain how the discussion can be a problem. I would leave that
> to experience.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>