On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 23:27 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29-Mar-19 03:30, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > 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-newcomers-overview-for-ietf-104-00
> >>
> >> Mostly, it not the newcomers that need help being nice to newcomers.
> >> They need training on having appropriately thick skins.
>
> > Please read the 3rd paragraph at
> > https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/get-started/starting/ If you
> > think that summary (which I drafted some years ago) is wrong, somebody
> > in the EMO directorate can presumably get it updated.
>
> This paragraph:
>
> } The IETF is normally very welcoming to newcomers, and tolerance is the
> } rule. The technical level is quite high, so if you write something that turns
> } out to be wrong, you may get some quite frank replies. Or sometimes you will
> } get a reply from someone whose first language is not English, and they can be
> } rude without intending it. (If someone is seriously offensive, the WG Chairs
> } are supposed to deal with it.) Don't be discouraged; everybody started as a
> } newcomer.
>
> Some examples might be worthwhile.
True, but that particular text was intended to be concise enough that
people would be likely to read it through. In a longer version, examples
would certainly be good. The "lost in translation" problem is real, but
it's not the whole story of course.
> For example: "Je demande" in french is properly translated as "I ask", but
> it could be translated literally as "I demand", which is significantly more
> hostile.
You have reason. (Tu a raison.) But looking at the above quote, I can see
that the difference between "frank" and "rude" is very subjective. I think
we all agree that if someone is factually or technically wrong in an
engineering discussion, it's necessary to say so. But how to do so
is a complicated question.
I'm not sure how specific this discussion is intended to be, but I just finished about six years of balloting on documents in IESG Evaluation.
What seemed helpful was to phrase my concerns and disagreements as questions ("but how does that approach handle this edge case?"), rather than as statements ("that approach doesn't handle this edge case").
Not all questions are nonconfrontational ("are you insane?"), but in my experience, technical questions are usually less confrontational.
Do the right thing, of course!
Spencer
Brian
