Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

Hi Pete

Thank you for explaining that and please accept my apologies for not leaving this to you and Francesca to address.

Jay

> On 15/10/2020, at 5:42 AM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> 
> Replying to Jay's message, but really this is to everyone and applies across WGs:
> 
> On 13 Oct 2020, at 19:06, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> Noting that I have absolutely no authority in this matter, either directly or indirectly, but that the emerging consensus is that I should be free to contribute to areas where I have no authority, I want to state that I think your message below has crossed a line of tolerable behaviour, even with a generous interpretation of "robust discourse".
> 
> Jay, there's nothing in your reply that I can really disagree with. However, when this kind of disruptive behavior happens on the list, the best plan of action is to drop a note to the chairs and let them address it. According to RFC 3934, the normal course of action is for the chairs to first talk to the person privately. Often, people do take it to heart and the behavior stops. (I always hope that doing so not only stops the behavior, but generates a public, "Sorry about that; didn't mean to be disruptive." Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.) Only if the behavior then continues do we get to the public warning or eventual suspension. While I appreciate that others publicly calling out bad behavior does show that others disagree with it too, it can lead to arguments on the list that are equally disruptive to getting work done.
> 
> Please give your chairs a chance to deal with disruptions on the list (in this WG or any other). I understand that it sometimes takes a bit of time for the chairs to get together to address these things (Francesca and I are in different time zones, so it took more than half a day for us to get our message together and sent out), but dealing with these things is (part of) why your chairs are here. Of course, if your chairs don't respond appropriately, there are other avenues (bringing it to the AD, bringing it to the Ombudsteam if the behavior is a bit more interpersonal) and you should feel free to use them. Doing so also gives the chairs a learning opportunity so they can address these things better in the future. But direct (and public) confrontations by other participants rarely lead to better behavior and work moving forward.
> 
> Again, I understand the good intentions of sending this sort of note, but in the long run I think having chairs deal with these sorts of incidents leads to better outcomes.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org