Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in  one WG list, I don't
beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some
people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation
business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of
thoes lists, therefore, thoes lists can be rude lists from time to time.

AB

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>>> AD hat squarely on my head.
>>>
>>> On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh.  Now I understand.
>>>>
>>>> You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
>>>> years after the IETF approved it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.  Very helpful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me as
>>> the consensus caller. And it is rude.
>>>
>>
>> Since you've made this a formal process point, I'll ask you to
>> substantiate it carefully and also formally.  The implication of your
>> assessment is that IETF participants must not comment on the utility of
>> comments by others.
>>
>
> That's not what I said, and in fact if you look at the line immediately
> following what you quoted, you will see that I said:
>
>  It's perfectly reasonable to say, "This would constitute a new
>>> requirement and I don't think there is a good justification to pursue that
>>> line."
>>>
>>
> It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that is
> problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that line of
> discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you want. It is
> the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is unreasonable. Especially
> coming from a senior member of the community, the only purpose it seems to
> serve is to bully others into not participating in the conversation. If you
> think that the conversation has gone on too long, you're perfectly within
> rights to ask the manager of the thread (in this case, myself or the
> chairs), in public if you like, to make a call and say that the issue is
> closed. But again, the tactics displayed above are not professional and not
> reasonable rhetorical mode.
>
> I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing to
>> do with personalities.  So, please explain this in a way that does not
>> sound like Procrustean political correctness.
>>
>
> I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you
> believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude
> comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least.
>
> For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it and
>> yes, of course alternate wording was possible.  However the thread is
>> attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort and to
>> ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities, including
>> published research data.
>>
>
> I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the objectors
> are ignoring operational realities. Perhaps they are. But the fact is that
> Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look at WG output. If
> senior members of the community (among which there are several in this
> thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important to make sure that
> their concerns are addressed. Maybe they simply don't have all of the
> information. But maybe the WG has missed something essential in all that
> careful work. Both have historically happened many times.
>
> A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and
>> destabilizing consumption of IETF resources.  In fact an important problem
>> with the alternate wording, such as you offered, is that it implies a
>> possible utility in the thread that does not exist.
>>
>
> It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of a
> Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a bad
> result has occurred, especially if the tactic used to end the discussion
> was sarcasm to chase people away from the discussion. You are looking at
> only the little picture. The consensus might end up on the rough side, but
>  having the conversation has utility in and of itself.
>
> I find your "edge" much more disruptive to the conversation, making it
> much more adversarial than explanatory, and damaging the consensus that
> might be built. I think that lowers the utility of the output tremendously.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.**com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> >
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>
>