I assume you mean that you disagree with her (and the Sergeant-at-Arms') evaluation that Mike was using unprofessional language? Even if that's the case, it's clear that the intent is to address tone, not content.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With respect, I believe Alissa was incorrect in her assertions.Sent from my iPhoneI would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that the issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not anything to do with his arguments.On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:No, what is being talked about is the suppression of necessary and constructive speech out of a misguided idea that telling the truth is disrespectful.Sent from my iPhoneNobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith. They're talking about treating fellow contributors with respect. There's a big gap between those two ideas.--RichardOn Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I believe such rules (or something akin to them [*]) are essential to productive technical discussion and therefore essential to IETF. I also believe that efforts to prevent people from telling the unvarnished truth about a technical mechanism, or a political one, are harmful to IETF in the most extreme sense possible.
[*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people. But criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s a risk that people will take such criticism personally. “
Keith
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> believe "Crocker's Rules" are incompatible with the IETF process and
> as such notifications via IETF's communication channels about whether
> someone adheres to Crocker's Rules or not, don't serve a purpose.
