I disagree with your efforts to police my speech, and think further parsing of Mike’s speech has passed the point of diminishing returns.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxx> wrote: 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.
With respect, I believe Alissa was incorrect in her assertions.. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxxx> wrote: I 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. 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 iPhone On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxx> wrote: Nobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith. They're talking about treating fellow contributors with respect. There's a big gap between those two ideas.
--Richard
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.
|
