Re: Recent threads concerning sergeants-at-arms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux