Re: [Gendispatch] Meetings summary

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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