Re: [Gendispatch] agenda for gendispatch at ietf116

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob

When I read your messages I was very surprised at the outright rudeness.  It seemed entirely out of context and as if there was some history here that produced your outbursts rather than the discussion in front of us. I fully concur with the chairs' assessment and warning.

Jay

> On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:21, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, ok.
> 
> This seems really escalated.
> 
> I would say I do think the IETF wastes time on procedural issues. Raising that point doesn’t seem remotely rude to me.
> 
> “I don’t care” in this context means “tilting at windmills”, not that I will win a debate or something.
> 
> I think the email client stuff is fair, because I really can’t read it, even when every other line is something I wrote. This is the organization in charge of parsing the stuff.
> 
> Lastly, I only talk about the documents. There’s always a way to make that personal, though.
> 
> In this case, I believe the chairs should let it go. I could forward email, but that’s not cool.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 22:55 Kirsty Paine <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> It is absolutely fine to think the work should be not be dispatched. However, there are many ways to put that view forward that aren't perceived as disruptive or rude.
>> 
>> The following is not an exhaustive list, but in the interests of us all learning and moving forward, here are some of the things that are not in the spirit of, or appropriate for, gendispatch's discussions:
>> - To say that the idea is "wasting IETF time" or "not worth addressing", when the chairs have given it agenda time. The result of that discussion might be "do not dispatch", but it's not helpful to reach a dispatch outcome, or to the WG, to say the discussion shouldn't happen at all.
>> - To say things like "I don't care", which comes off as dismissive, and doesn't tell us anything about your view on the dispatch question (e.g. plenty of work I don't care about should still be dispatched).
>> - To go in on someone's email client and how it treats URLs; this is very off-topic, and comes off as aggressive (compared to merely asking for the correct URL, which would be appropriate)
>> - To say that someone's way of communicating is "completely incomprehensible" comes off as insulting to that person, and doesn't advance the dispatch discussion - whereas asking for more clarification would advance the discussion, without being rude.
>> 
>> This is not an exhaustive list, but I hope provides some understanding to you and for the benefit of the group. I'm happy to discuss further F2F or over video, where I think it can be easier to understand.
>> 
>> Kirsty
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 2:38 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Hi, noted.
>>> 
>>> No one said anything to me off-list.
>>> 
>>> It should be fine to hold the opinion that the idea proposed here should go nowhere, though.
>>> 
>>> So, yes, could you explain it? What’s wrong here? I just said this topic is not worth spending time on, and kind of a rathole. What’s the problem?
>>> 
>>> sorry for the trouble,
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 22:18 Kirsty Paine <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>> 
>>>> The messages you have sent to the gendispatch list this morning are insulting, dismissive, and disruptive to the WG process as per RFC3934. I'll happily explain exactly which parts are not conducive to gendispatching Rich's work with you directly, if that's needed. But as others have indicated, to you on list and then privately to the chairs, this disruption needs to stop; so, per RFC3934, please consider this a public warning.
>>>> 
>>>> To the WG, please excuse the delay in communicating this; I was on a flight, asleep. What a delightful thing to land to...
>>>> 
>>>> Kirsty
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 12:29 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Lars,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are a reasonable person and I have read your code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the IETF would do well to respect running code a bit more. URLs work, don’t break them. The IESG/IAB thing isn’t all roses, but I am not sure what would be better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincerely: “please stop it”,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 20:17 Lars Eggert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 26. Mar 2023, at 11:45, Rob Sayre <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> > I am all for procedural backflips and tolerance, but this one has already been declined, right?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I declined the BOF request only because it came in much too late, and not for any other reason. I suggested to the proponents to consider taking the discussion to GENDISPATCH if they wanted a slot at 116.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lars
>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>>> Gendispatch mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]