On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I do want an outcome where people are commonly more respectful of one another, but don't really want people to think they need be respectful of other people's positions - regardless of whether that position is based on one's employer or of having been selected for something by nomcom. And I do see that as a danger that (maybe inherently?) accompanies efforts to get us to behave better.
We do have the ombudspeople in case that would happen, but I think it is very clear right now that it is the tone of the communications far more than the technical content.
Lastly I think the fact that we're a volunteer-driven body without members also has an impact in that we cannot as easily punish whatever one might consider bad behaviour as is possible in a company or membership organisation.
I would think it is the other way, it is easier for us since most of the work happens on the lists, and people who keep offending the policies can be moderated so that they can fix their tone and stay on the technical content of their message. For in person meetings, I guess the WG chairs have the means to warn people about their verbal contributions and in a worse case take the mic away from repeat offenders? And I'm speaking as one who for the first time ever last week had one of my own postings being rejected by the moderator who requested I rephrase it a bit to be less confrontational. While I might think that was unneccessary, I can't really disagree with improving the tone of my message in an attempt to create a friendlier community online. Paul
