On 9/9/19 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
" - If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
issues rather than the personalities involved."
RFC1855, October 1995. I don't think there is anything new about avoiding personal attacks. However, I agree that the subjective threshold may have moved.
From a message on a public list in 1996:
"You are consistently demonstrating you have absolutely no clue of the issues and while mildly amusing, this is beginning to get tiresome."
Was that OK in 1996? Would it be OK in 2019?
If that was the only message I don't think it would be OK. It
might've been tolerated
in 1996.
Thing is, we're a consensus-based organization and RFC 7282 gives a
good standard that it
is reached when all issues have been addressed, not accommodated. So if
the recipient
of this email had raised a number of issues, let's say each one was
individually clueless,
and they were all addressed in a manner that was not a personal attack
then if that person
again raised the issues (the "constantly demonstrating" part) then I'd
say that remark is
acceptable. It's basically telling the person that it's time to pack it
in and move on.
So let's say my premise is correct, that this person's serial
cluelessness resulted in a
bunch of individual issues raised and addressed yet still repeated these
clueless issues.
It would be A Bad Thing (tm), IMO, if the SAA stepped in and reprimanded
the person who sent
an email that contained that sentence. If, on the other hand, this was
the first attempt at
engaging then it's not right.
Speech is too contextual for cut-and-dry rules, especially speech in
email.
regards,
Dan.
Regards
Brian
On 10-Sep-19 10:43, 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.
This debate seems to be about how do we handle cases which are not
simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such. (Part of
the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult and
when.) Given what has been acceptable in at least some working groups
in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the situation.
Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid going overboard
and losing the free technical discussion that is the core of our work.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/9/2019 6:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hi Rich,
On 9/9/19 1:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now
commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more
inclusivity. You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I
misunderstand you?
You misunderstand me. I do not object to trying to be more
inclusive,
but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined
constraints
on IETF contributions.
I am sorry if I was not clear. I am saying "we are choosing to do A
in order to get B" You are saying "I want B without A"
So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?
You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me specific
examples of things
that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as less
so?
I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not
sure what A is.
If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for
newcomers then great.
If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming it
"toxic" or "harsh" or
"hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.
regards,
Dan.
