Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Please do not misconstrue what the chairs said in their note regarding 
the 3934 public notice. We did not in any way claim that expressing 
disagreement with points made by a participant or in a document is 
inappropriate, and in fact we explicitly note in our message that some 
of the content of the note in question may be on point and some of the 
complaints may be reasonable. We absolutely are not shutting down 
constructive criticism. It is only the personalized accusations and 
characterizations made that were problematic; they are not constructive 
and are certainly disruptive. So you are simply not disagreeing with the 
statement that the chairs in fact made.

Having said that: While pointing out "false or misleading statements" is 
absolutely in scope for criticism, commenting that a document "lacks 
support" (other than expressing that *you* don't support the document) 
is not useful; the consensus call *is* a duty of the chairs and 
individuals prematurely trying to make a call of how much support a 
document has is inappropriate. (Questioning a call after it is made is 
quite reasonable, but that's aimed at the chairs, not the group.) As for 
"shows prejudice", while carefully limiting such a claim to criticism of 
the content is reasonable, it is very easy for such criticism to slip 
into a personal attack on the motivations of the author, so it must be 
done with care.

pr

On 15 Oct 2020, at 12:16, Keith Moore wrote:

> I respectfully disagree with the chairs' statement.   In general, if 
> a document makes false or misleading statements, lacks support, shows 
> prejudice, etc. it should be considered appropriate to point that out, 
> or at least to state where there is disagreement about those 
> things.   Criticizing a document is not a personal attack, and it is 
> disruptive to try to shut down constructive criticism.
>
> Keith Moore
>
> On 10/14/20 12:16 PM, Francesca Palombini wrote:
>> The chairs discussed your message last night / early this morning.
>> Even if some of the content is on point and some of your complaints
>> might be reasonable (e.g. "I tried to work with you but you never
>> replied to me"), that does not excuse the personalized accusations 
>> and
>> characterizations in the rest of your message. It is disruptive to
>> getting work done in this group and will not be tolerated. This sort
>> of thing has already been discussed with you privately. Consider this
>> your public warning. Your behavior must change or your posting
>> privileges will be suspended.


-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best