Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet Draft Deadline Approaching
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 09 March 2020 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9781C3A0C96; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sAXWLYEf18f4; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219F43A0C97; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F262754842F; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 01:36:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id E527A440040; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 01:36:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 01:36:46 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet Draft Deadline Approaching
Message-ID: <20200309003646.GA45173@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <ABA284F8-5519-41B4-92DF-6F7467302BBE@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ABA284F8-5519-41B4-92DF-6F7467302BBE@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BA03CTUcLuiw4uo0voXJT12VZ2I>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:36:57 -0000
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:03:03PM +1300, Jay Daley wrote: > There is a big difference between people asking questions, making recommendations, providing alternative analysis, challenging decisions, etc and impugning motives, deliberately misrepresenting people/processes, plain insults, etc. The former is perfectly acceptable, the latter is never acceptable. Luckily, i am not aware of any intentional cases of this, but maybe i am also only living under a rock. But of course agreed. I would like to two more observations: In general, even a technial, well intentioned discuss can turn into something perceived to be unfriendly enough that collaboration diminishes, and i think that may be a more common issue in IETF than you what you describe. (1) Most compromises IMHO are found much easier in person in a setting where there is also no third party present to whom one or both sides would want to pander to. This type of "small hallway" discussion is already absent from some conflicts i observe, and of course it will be worse when we have more and more remote-only attendance and Email-only discuss. IMHO, "rough consensus" is necessary, but not sufficient. For those cases where i see this issue i wonder if the folks did try to pick up at least a phone to talk to each other or discuss the conflict in PM. (2) Community discussions should follow best protocol interop principles: Be strict on what you send, and loose on what you accept. If you send something thats goes beyond technical and could be perceived personal or otherwise non-technical, that is worth an excuse, but it is IMHO equally bad if the receipient uses that language to shame the sender publically and use this as an escape not to tckle the technical issue. The best solution for these issues is again (IMHO) PM or audio channel without a third party to pander to. Cheers Toerless
- IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet Draft… IETF Secretariat
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [107all] IETF 107 Standard Registration and I… Randy Bush
- Re: [107all] IETF 107 Standard Registration and I… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [107all] IETF 107 Standard Registration and I… Randy Bush
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Robert Raszuk
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Randy Bush
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Carsten Bormann
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Lou Berger
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Lou Berger
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Salz, Rich
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Wrt. cancelling IETF107 in-person registration (w… Toerless Eckert
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Alissa Cooper
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Alissa Cooper
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Randy Bush
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jay Daley
- RE: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Larry Masinter
- Re: risk zones (was: IETF 107 Standard Registrati… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Dirk Kutscher
- Re: risk zones Joseph Potvin
- Re: risk zones Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Wrt. cancelling IETF107 in-person registratio… Jared Mauch
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Lou Berger
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: risk zones Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Toerless Eckert
- Re: risk zones Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: risk zones Rich Kulawiec
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: risk zones Christian Huitema
- Re: risk zones Randy Bush
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Jim Fenton
- on "positive" organizational culture Keith Moore
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture Jay Daley
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 107 Standard Registration and Internet D… Toerless Eckert
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture Keith Moore
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture Jay Daley
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture Toerless Eckert
- Re: on "positive" organizational culture Keith Moore