On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:58:52PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 6/28/2019 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > >> On 6/28/2019 11:28 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > >>> Usually a situation developed because some process was flawed or due to a lack alignment between responsibility & accountability, etc. This also means granting a bit of trust in colleagues and acknowledging that everyone is doing their best to achieve what they think will best serve the situation/platform/org/etc. This can be hard to do, but it is a healthy step that can make an org stronger. > >> Hi Jason - > >> > >> The problem is that whatever trust I (we?) might want to grant in this > >> case is diminished by past actions such as the rfcplusplus bof, and in > >> the current instance, an explanation of behavior by the RSOC that > >> doesn't meet the smell test. > >> > >> This also begs the question of what were they actually trying to achieve > >> and whether we the community believe those to be worthy goals. > >> > >> A few of the other questions that should be asked in the post-mortem of > >> this stupidity* is "Why did the RSOC find it necessary to take the > >> actions it took without any community input whatsoever?" and "Did the > >> IAB have any pre-knowledge of the actions that were about to be taken?" > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> * With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive > >> term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the > >> above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning > >> action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of > >> malign intent open. Feel free to come up with your own terms. > > I appreciate that you have put thought into your phrasing. However, this > > term nonetheless fails to meet the bar for professional conduct required > > by RFC 3005. We must treat each other with courtesy, even when we find > > events to be disconcerting. Making observations about the situation is > > reasonable; attacking community members is out of bounds. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben > > for the Sergeant-at-Arms > > With respect - no. Please read above more closely. The situation is > stupid. "post-mortem of this stupidity". If you choose to attribute > stupidity to a community member so be it. With respect, I have a hard time seeing how there can be stupidity without some*one* being stupid -- inanimate objects don't have motive or intelligence. Especially so when seen alongside talk of "intent", which to me at least seems clearly tied to one or more individuals' actions. Feel free to tell me more about how I'm wrong (but that's probably better off-list -- I don't anticipate an IETF working group that handles the subtleties of the English language). > In any event, the general model is to first have a private discussion > with the prospective offendee describing what you found offensive and > why before public sanction. Please try and do all of us that courtesy > the next time. That is the general model, yes, and one that is followed most of the time. There is a countervailing force, though, in the form of the risk that observers will see silence as tacit approval. As Sergeant-at-Arms, I'm tasked with keeping the discussion forum a professional environment for all participants, and sometimes that involves sending a public signal about what behavior is expected. I sympathsize with your frustration and I want the same answers that you do, but this is a hard conversation for the community to be having, and adding into the mix remarks that come off as personal attacks will just make it harder. -Ben
