I do hope this conversation can get back to the many points in Mike's messages that need consideration and evaluation to effectively move forward.
Kathleen
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
Now there's some truth-varnishing going on :) I'm not disagreeing with your tone, Keith, I'm saying your argument is based on a false premise.On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 iPhoneI 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Best regards,
Kathleen
