> On 3 Sep 2019, at 10:11 am, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/2/19 8:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to unprofessional behaviour -- which *is* bad behaviour. > No, "unprofessional behavior" is not inherently bad behavior, for reasons already cited. Too often, "professsional" is just another word that's used to justify abuse. An observation: you seem to be very focused on a specific kind of abuse. Is it really abusive to have the way you communicate challenged? As stated before, the substance of a message should not be ignored because of its form, but the form can and should be criticised if it causes harm -- especially if that harm is in convincing others that they don't want to participate in the discussion. >> Also, there's a difference between "ignore it" and "don't sanction it" -- and again a difference between social sanctions and official ones. >> > If pushback against people for their "tone" has a chilling effect on IETF contributions, I have a problem with it. How can we make it acceptable in IETF to speak up against bad ideas if we demand that participants walk on eggshells? Are you really equating considering how your words affect others as "walking on eggshells?" > All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really are harmful to IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify whatever prejudices they have. I asked for examples. And, you must realise that the view that people are merely justifying prejudices cuts both ways... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
