Re: tone policing

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I also think it's not about how often you say something, but in what context.

Assume that a WG is debating on whether to use X or Y. The proponents of both X and Y may repeat their arguments many times during the debate.

However, at some point the WG decides, using proper IETF procedures, to go for X.

I think the people who supported Y should respect that decision, and not continue their arguments for Y - unless they have NEW information to prove that Y is better, that X is broken etc etc etc.

Regards,

Christer 



On 03/09/2019, 15.26, "ietf on behalf of Keith Moore" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    On 9/3/19 7:35 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
    
    > That is essentially what PR actions are for.  Repeatedly saying the same thing is an example of  abusive behavior. If you did it in a f2f conversation, people would walk away. Here, they can’t. So we need PR actions.
    
    I respectfully disagree, for multiple reasons.  One is that even a 
    judgment of "repeatedly saying the same thing" is itself subjective.   
    Especially over email it's normal to refine one's statements over 
    time.   To an observer who isn't watching closely, it may look as if a 
    speaker is repeatedly saying the same thing, when that is not in fact 
    the case.
    
    The second reason is that accusing someone of repeatedly saying the same 
    thing (and implied threats of PR) can itself be a bullying tactic and a 
    form of abuse.  Trying to suppress discussion on a subject important to 
    IETF is not appropriate.
    
    A related reason is that when a person finds himself or herself (or his 
    or her ideas) subject to attack from multiple individuals, that person 
    is naturally going to need to respond more often.   It should not matter 
    how many times a person or that person's ideas are attacked.   Bullies 
    in particular don't want to bother to understand the positions of those 
    they're attacking, they just want that person to back down through sheer 
    intimidation.   What should matter is the quality of the arguments being 
    made and whether those arguments show an to understanding of the other 
    position(s) and willingness take it/them into account.
    
    Keith