Hi Bob, Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. A few responses below. > On Jul 3, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alissa, > > I am troubled by your response to this situation. The relevant text from RFC3005 is: > > - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject > > Given this is about being critical of an action by the IETF leadership (that is, the actions of the IAB/RSOC), I find it troubling that the leadership is invoking it's to restrict postings. No one’s postings have been restricted. Apologies if my previous note was unclear about that. Mike has continued to post today, as you may have seen. > Mike was “speaking truth to power”. > > While I agree we should should be professional in our communication, in the case of being critical of the IETF leadership, there should be a broad tolerance of what is allowed. This was not done here, and it will have the side effect of saying you shouldn’t criticize the IETF leadership. Even if I were to try to send that message I don’t think anyone would listen. :) As I said in my note to Scott and John, I erred by not indicating that substantive responses from myself and hopefully the IAB are forthcoming. I apologize for that, it was a mistake on my part. I didn’t want to get ahead of any IAB messages by sending my own substantive messages first. I appreciate that perceptions of what is considered unprofessional are subjective. In my experience, requests to use one’s “inside voice” are directed at children. I will factor into my decisionmaking that not everyone perceives it that way should the phrase be used on this list in the future. Thanks, Alissa > > Bob > > > > > >> On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC 3005. Repeated use of unprofessional language may be deterring others from voicing their opinion for fear of being disrespected. It is important that everyone in the community feels comfortable enough to express their own views on the IETF discussion list if they choose to do so. >> >> I understand that you do not intend to read further mails on the IETF discussion list regarding the RSE. I’m sending this mail so that the community understands that the IETF discussion list charter is being enforced. >> >> Regards, >> Alissa >> >>> On Jul 1, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Seriously?? >>> >>> As someone much smarter than me once said: "When you reach the bottom of the hole, stop digging." While I admire persistence in trying to defend an untenable position, I'm at a loss to understand why this is acceptable behavior from the SAA? As far as I can tell, you've tried your best to imply the worst possible meaning of my statement even in the face of multiple folk explaining the difference between calling some one stupid and calling a result a stupidity. >>> >>> You also - again - seem to be missing the context. The actual * quote was: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> "this stupidity" is conjugate with "unfortunate event", "well meaning action" and "mistake" all items relating to the event/result. Had I been able to prove malign intent, or I were trying to be offensive just to be offensive I would have used something more like: "this crime", "nefarious outcome", "underhanded result", or "dishonorable treatment". >>> >>> But I'm sure we would then be discussing why I called someone a criminal. >>> >>> This subject and this poster are in my kill file. If you want me to read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me directly as I've now ask three times. >>> >>> Later, Mike >>> >> >
