Hi Dave,
At 11:19 10-11-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
* There needs to be an institutional commitment to the exercise
of that role. That's more than just naming some folk. The
relatively easy part is that it means ensuring that facilitators
have the skillset and it means training others to appreciate that skillset.
But 'training' is not enough, but there also needs to be the
application of leverage over those who contribute in a fashion that
works against the facilitation. Unfortunately, the IETF has a deep
and persistent unwillingness to apply such pressures. So folk who
misbehave persistently do not, themselves, get trained to change
their behavior. (Folk are likely to disagree with this assessment,
especially because of various, recent documents and discussion --as
well as the very rare interventions along the lines of "folk, we can
do better" spread amongst multiple contributors privately or an
entire list publicly, although such interventions have no training
effect, long term -- but the fact that people continue to feel
permission to attack others, on a regular basis, serves as a visible counter.)
Thanks for the feedback.
The expression of a thought or idea which is acceptable to people in
one country may be viewed as offensive by people in another
country. The way in which the thought is expressed may be acceptable
to people in one country and might be viewed as offensive to people
in another country. There are also accepted norms to consider, e.g.
do the subscribers of this mailing list find censorship acceptable or not?
I read the thread at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99783.html The
person mentioned that he is new to this mailing list. Did any of the
messages on the thread have content which violated the rules of
process? Was there any harassment? Was the topic relevant to the
IETF? Who in the IETF is responsible for that topic? There aren't
any easy answers to those questions.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy