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

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; }  "  I prefer the old rules (from netnews days):

1: Don't annoy others unnecessarily; and
2: Don't be too easily annoyed."

be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send. postel ftw.

Lloyd [e-mail]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016, 10:00 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:

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.

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

  Who is "we"?

  (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.)

> 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.

> 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.

  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!)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>