Re: cultural sensitivity towards new comers (was Re: voting rights in general)

["Stan Kalisch" <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019, at 12:29 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

[Responding on thread, but not specifically to Tim]

While it is good to be sensitive to newcomers, may I suggest that we should

treat everyone the same, and that is nicely!

The theory seems to be that "It is OK to be harsh, abrupt, or shouty with

established participants when they do something we don't like, but if they

are a newcomer we should be gentle."

Well, no! We should be civil and polite to everyone, and we should not need

to behave differently to one subset.

It's also worth noting that, usually, when something devolves into animus or shouting, it's in opposition to the terseness being extolled in this thread.

Stan

Sure, if someone presses a hot button, we should say "Whoa, that is a big

red flag in the IETF." And we should offer to explain why, offline, and in

private. But why would we not do that to an established participant?

If we are nice by default, we don't need to worry about how to be nice in

special cases. Better still, we don't have to work out how to distinguish

categories of participants.

Just be professional and nice.

Thanks,

Adrian

-----Original Message-----

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Tim Chown

Sent: 26 March 2019 16:22

To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: cultural sensitivity towards new comers (was Re: voting rights

in general)

> On 26 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 

>>   New participants could also stand to get some training.

> 

> We offer newcomer's training on Sunday, and the same presentation a couple

of times the weeks before the IETF.  Are there other things we could do? See

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/104/newcomers/ and

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-edu-sesse-newc

omers-overview-for-ietf-104-00 

Do we include a map showing where all the historic IETF minefields are?

"So we should add a DHCPv6 default gateway option!"

"We can just insert an extra header here rather than encapsulating!"

etc.

I suspect if newcomers step on one of those unwittingly they may get a

harsher response than usual.

I wonder what the 10 biggest mines are....?

Tim