Re-adding the list.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:53 Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 21:01 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Someone else wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> Have you seen evidence of that happening? I haven't.
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I've seen numerous examples of each of the above.
I claim it happens every time we sit through 47 slides of 9pt text crammed
into a 5 minute slot. The chair failed to communicate with the presenter,
often because they were being too polite.This nicely highlights a misunderstanding that’s showing up here. Keith, for example, has mentioned several times the idea of arguments not being raised because they would be perceived as impolite. Similar to your scenario here.That is not at all the meaning of politeness that I (or I think Melinda) have in mind. That, I agree, is unhelpful self-censorship that we shouldn’t encourage.It is possible, though, to tell someone politely and empathetically that they won’t be allowed to present that deck. That their protocol is unworkable. It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and it merits the effort.I’m not saying anyone should say anything different substantively, I’m saying we shouldn’t tolerate people being unkind to each other.—Richard
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
