Re: Fwd: Initial suggestion from the IETF SAA

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/6/21 11:48 AM, Adam Roach wrote:

>> Let me just suggest for now that if the SAAs find some language 
>> "unprofessional" then there's probably a more specific reason that 
>> they could cite that would provide better feedback to the author.   
>> And if the SAAs can't find a more specific reason for labeling 
>> something "unprofessional", maybe they should reconsider it. 
>
>
> I'm not arguing with your point (nor am I agreeing with it); I'm just 
> saying that you're directing it to the wrong people. The SAA have been 
> asked to do a job by the IETF (the whole IETF, as a consensus 
> position), and it's unseemly to dress them down for doing it. If you 
> want the job to change, then work to change the job description. 
> Asking the SAA to selectively ignore parts of the job description 
> based on individual input is risky: I would just as much object to 
> someone suggesting that the SAA ignore the "and represents a pattern 
> of abuse" portion of their job description so as to start instituting 
> mailing list bans based on a single message.

Ok, I didn't think I was asking you to do anything that contradicted RFC 
3005 and I understand that any change to the actual language requires 
IETF Consensus.   I do think, however, that since the document you 
referred to [1] explicitly says that "unprofessional commentary is not 
further described in RFC 3005", and also that the specific criteria for 
"unprofessional commentary" in [1] are the opinions of the 
sergeant-at-arms team [*], it's reasonable to try to make constructive 
suggestions for better interpretations of the term "unprofessional 
commentary" until RFC 3005 can be updated.   So please interpret my 
comments as attempts at constructive suggestions.

thanks,

Keith

[1] https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/master/unprofessional-commentary.md

[*] Despite one non-SAA having committed a change to that document.