The problem generally is that there are ways to take up more than your fair share of the space in the conversation. This is one. If there is no regulation of this behavior it disenfranchises people who have work to do: precisely the people we want participating. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 3, 2019, at 08:57, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > I also think it's not about how often you say something, but in what context. > > Assume that a WG is debating on whether to use X or Y. The proponents of both X and Y may repeat their arguments many times during the debate. > > However, at some point the WG decides, using proper IETF procedures, to go for X. > > I think the people who supported Y should respect that decision, and not continue their arguments for Y - unless they have NEW information to prove that Y is better, that X is broken etc etc etc. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > On 03/09/2019, 15.26, "ietf on behalf of Keith Moore" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 9/3/19 7:35 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> That is essentially what PR actions are for. Repeatedly saying the same thing is an example of abusive behavior. If you did it in a f2f conversation, people would walk away. Here, they can’t. So we need PR actions. > > I respectfully disagree, for multiple reasons. One is that even a > judgment of "repeatedly saying the same thing" is itself subjective. > Especially over email it's normal to refine one's statements over > time. To an observer who isn't watching closely, it may look as if a > speaker is repeatedly saying the same thing, when that is not in fact > the case. > > The second reason is that accusing someone of repeatedly saying the same > thing (and implied threats of PR) can itself be a bullying tactic and a > form of abuse. Trying to suppress discussion on a subject important to > IETF is not appropriate. > > A related reason is that when a person finds himself or herself (or his > or her ideas) subject to attack from multiple individuals, that person > is naturally going to need to respond more often. It should not matter > how many times a person or that person's ideas are attacked. Bullies > in particular don't want to bother to understand the positions of those > they're attacking, they just want that person to back down through sheer > intimidation. What should matter is the quality of the arguments being > made and whether those arguments show an to understanding of the other > position(s) and willingness take it/them into account. > > Keith > > > >
