Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 26, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 3/26/19 7:41 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> If someone points out that I've made a bad assumption or that I've made >> a design choice that would cause problems, I don't consider it unkind to >> have it pointed out to me. > > Of course not, and that's not in dispute. Maybe I've missed > something but I haven't seen anyone say that disagreement is > not okay or that argument is not okay. But, people really need > to stay away from ad hominem argumentation, imputing malicious > motivation to someone who disagrees with you, and so on. Agree . > When > you suggest that you think it could be a boon to the organization > to have participants behave in a way that drives out people with > low tolerance for abuse, you're basically arguing in favor of > that abuse, or at least that's how I read it. What I meant, but perhaps was not sufficiently clear about, was that _some_ speech that would be considered rude in some cultures or contexts, should be entirely appropriate in IETF (and I would suggest, in many other contexts in which people are dealing with immense complexity and/or the potential for serious harm). The only reason I say this is because there are many social conventions that encourage overlooking problems and/or denial, and those conventions are therefore detrimental to IETF’s work. I’ll give a specific example. In some circles it’s considered inappropriate to question the technical judgment of someone who has higher “status” than oneself. In IETF, notions of “status” should not matter. Keith
