On 7/3/19 6:53 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
But I really don't think this is a matter of choosing whether or not to*be* impolite, it's about the *perception* of [im]politeness. I strongly disagree with this. The phrase "perception of impoliteness" implies that any fault is not with the speaker, but rather with those who might be offended. The speaker is blameless, it's just your "perception."
If a speaker withholds useful input because he/she perceives it would be impolite, or taken as impolite, that impedes IETF's goals.
If people suppress useful input because they perceive it as impolite, that also impedes IETF's goals.
If an audience discredits useful input because he/she perceives it as impolite, that also impedes IETF's goals.
But perceptions of impolitenessdo serve as barriers to raising such issues, and I think we need to lower those barriers to the extent possible.I disagree with this even more strongly. The implication is that all we need to do is teach everyone how descend to the uncivil level of discourse that used to be acceptable. I maintain it no longer is. You seem to believe that it's just in my head. I guess time will tell who's right.
My experience is that there are often widely varying impressions about what is polite and what is impolite. I don't want us to descend to the least civil discourse that's possible, any more than I want us to enforce the lowest common denominator of "politeness" that exists in human society (which would basically prevent us from ever raising a technical objection to anything, but instead having to say things like "I don't understand X" or withholding support for proposals without explaining why). Either way lies madness. I want an explicitly defined middle ground.
Keith
