I was thinking it'd be hard to provide good examples, but you've done that excellently. To whatever extent you're not proud of that 2011 mail, I think this 2019 mail repairs lots. A fine example that we can all live and learn, and to follow. Thank you, S. On 10/09/2019 00:15, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 08:43, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Dan, you asked for specific examples of speech whose acceptability has >> changed. >> >> A clear and simple example is personal attacks. It is no longer >> acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to an >> argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so we >> should ignore your input." Other even more extreme and personal >> comments were once accepted in this community. they are not accepted >> any longer. > > Like for example this thing, which I'm not particularly proud of: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/zPoaR1ezRWRs4ji9rbojXLuomFE > > The whole experience around there nearly turned me off the IETF entirely, largely due to things like this: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/4bg3IkTTJvCAcr8aro5wCyNjZSA > > .... and I know Mark's not around to defend himself here, so I can only point out the flaws in my own communication style there and the missed opportunities to progress work because I was too busy butting heads. > > I'm sad I never got to meet Mark in person. I think a lot of the value of in-person meetings is the sitting together and looking into each other's eyes and realising that the other person isn't a moron and isn't deliberately trying to break the world! > > Bron. > > -- > Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd > brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
