IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: discussion style and respect

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1041A9233 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8gz6ULjC8EX3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E0A11A90E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3B5DA008E; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:18:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.239] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:18:22 -0700
References: <3BF40BF3-B7EB-4571-BD7B-D394D4F0CB6C@ietf.org> <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <F56A33D90543E4A17CDC2875@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <557AB950.3010005@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <557AB950.3010005@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F2391DDF-693A-4FB7-918A-413BBD6D3226@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:18:20 -0400
To: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PBYbxj4sQAX30a-x0jtg7GdHLu4>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:18:24 -0000

On Jun 12, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> The core issues are that we do not adequately define unacceptable
> behavior and we do essentially no enforcement, except in the most
> extreme cases and for the most marginalized participant.

This is definitely /a/ core issue. However, the anti-reason tactics that people have talked about previously are also an important and separate problem, which can only be addressed by working group chairs who do a good job of calling consensus. I mentioned appeals because we hardly ever get appeals that address failures of this sort. Appeals of this sort are not a bad thing, and we need more of them.  It should be embarrassing for us at the plenary if the IESG reports that they got no appeals, rather then embarrassing for them if they have to report that they got none, assuming there was something worth appealing that trimester.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email