Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Some quick clarifications, below, in-line

Regards,
Jordi


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de John Leslie <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: sábado, 11 de junio de 2016, 18:59
Para: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]

>Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>... 
>> FWIW, I had communicated to Jordi at the beginning of this thread that
>> I believed BCP 54 was not being followed,
>
>   (Passive voice really doesn't help here!)
>
>   BCP 54 can be read different ways, and IMHO, it often is.
>
>   I was, frankly, surprised when Jordi threatened to restrict posting
>rights; and I was even more surprised when he asked the Secretariat to
>do so.
>
>   There is no actual record of the Secretariat doing so. This may be a
>good thing; but leaving this uncertain doesn't help the rest of us to
>understand what behaviors will be so punished.

You may be missed this, but this has been done already several times in the last 11 years (if I’m correct, an average of 1 per year). As SaA I always provided one or several warnings (private and in the list) and if the behaviour, or the off-topic, keeps going on, I asked the secretariat to suspend posting rights. Is not something I like to do, but is my duty following BCP45/RFC3005. Literal text about that:

Inappropriate postings include:

    - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
    - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical concerns
    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

   The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
   appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
   or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
   pattern of abuse.  They are encouraged to take into account the
   overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether
   particular postings are an aberration or typical.  Complaints
   regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.

>
>> and that if warnings weren?t sufficient we should act.
>
>   Who is "we"?

Jari and myself talked before the warning, decided to issue the warning and ask to immediately stop a thread not because the thread itself, but because the unprofessional way it was being carried out.

>
>   (Incidentally, Jordi is not a Working Group Chair within the meaning
>of RFC 3934. You probably are; but again, it can be read differently by
>different folks.)

I’m acting as SaA, not WG chair.

>
>> The discussion went on, and he may have had also other or different
>> concerns.
>> 
>> I did want to set the record straight on two things, however.
>> 
>> First, and perhaps most important, all discussion of role of families
>> in meeting site decisions, priorities, etc. is of course completely OK.
>
>   Keep in mind that for many, English isn't their first language.
>
>   "Discussion" being "completely OK" doesn't adequately hint that
>particular expressions of a personal opinion are NOT OK.

To make it clear. I’m fine with any opinion, I don’t care if it is not same opinion I may have, in any topic. Is a matter of respecting others with a professional behaviour.

>
>> The same applies to pretty much everything else that we?ve been
>> discussing. The sergeant-of-arms, moderation, and posting rights
>> suspension are NOT meant for dealing with any this, irrespective of
>> the fact that reasonable people might disagree on these topics.
>
>   You lost me, here.

I think the meaning is that the restriction of posting right is not because the TOPIC, is because is being carried out in an unprofessional way, not respecting other’s families.

I may have failed in communicating this correctly, or even in acting too fast, but my understanding is that if I my position of SaA, I ask someone to stop with a clear warning, to avoid more people inflaming the thread (Jari and I got several formal complains), and in less than 2 hours you come back to the list asking why, instead of asking privately if you don’t understand why you got a warning, then I need to stop it just by following the rules, because that’s my job.

>
>   Do you mean that Jordi was exceeding his role?
>
>   If so, please say so in as many words.
>
>   I thought about responding to Jordi at the first post; and maybe
>things would have gone more smoothly if I did. But we are where we are.
>This no longer can be treated by gentle private emails. :^( :^(
>
>> Second, I do believe that RFC 7154 / BCP 54 clearly requires us to be
>> respectful of other participants.
>
>   Again, alas, it can be read differently by different folks. :^(
>
>   And opinions differ greatly as to what constitutes disrespect. :^(
>
>   I prefer the old rules (from netnews days):
>
>1: Don't annoy others unnecessarily; and
>2: Don't be too easily annoyed.
>
>> It is simpl[y] not OK to make statements disrespecting a subgroup of
>> our participants.
>
>   Again, opinions differ greatly as to what constitutes disrespect.
>I can't help you much there. :^(
>
>   But I urge caution in choosing particular actions in those cases
>where you see disrespect. Once you start acting, things start escalating;
>and _somebody_ will find _your_ action disrespectful. :^( :^( :^(
>
>====
>
>   (To be clear, I do believe criticizing Jordi's actions doesn't imply
>disrespect of Jordi as a person. I _really_ wouldn't want his job!)

Thanks for that. Believe me, is not easy. But I need to follow rules, and rules are set by RFC3005. If somebody acts against this. I give a warning, and if he keeps going, just need to keep going with the rules and restrict posting rights.

I can mention a recent restriction, probably the last one I did. Someone was using the list for announcing a conference. I checked with Jari if he authorized it, was not the case; so I provided a warning and reminded all about RFC3005. The person continued after a few days to send the announcement again. I’ve no other choice that a PR-action.

Believe me, I don’t like it, but as said, is my duty.

There is always a balance between freedom of expression, following rules and respecting the others, and this is what we must do. If we don’t like it, we may need to work out a new version of RFC3005, stating a more clear process, how to educate people, so and so, but at the end, if people don’t respect the others, always there will be a need for actions.

>
>--
>John Leslie <[e-mail]>
>
>