----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 12:28 AM > 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"). Spencer Interesting. I have gone in the opposite direction, seeing, in my Western culture, a question as always being at least pushy and sometimes somewhat aggressive so I seek to make statements instead. But at the same time, I seek to qualify them so I would only say 'That approach does not handle this case' if I can quote chapter and verse e.g. 'because it is in contravention of section 15.3 of RFC57xx' If I cannot give such supporting evidence, then I tend to say 'I think that ...' leaving it open - hopefully - for others to feel comfortable taking a different stance. Either way, I ask far fewer questions that I did twenty years ago Tom Petch > 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
