Re: perspective of discussion about I-D.farresnickel-harassment

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 22 March 2015 17:11 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 4D9E81A005B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:11:45 -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 cZetwblDxB-v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:11:44 -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 384A21A002C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:11:44 -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 A8680DA00AF; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1231:998:a5a1:448a:28:e7f7] (31.130.238.232) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:11:37 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: perspective of discussion about I-D.farresnickel-harassment
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdr9=98dBiP3r9gvM4fyj9rb9gP2JB6xBmotpUcJkHtwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:11:33 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9B2B80FA-1AD1-42B5-871A-DEA7CF1F7D44@nominum.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdr9=98dBiP3r9gvM4fyj9rb9gP2JB6xBmotpUcJkHtwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.232]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QE6IDJD9RIehl6IrOjyCJ1eaUvU>
Cc: 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: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:11:45 -0000

On Mar 22, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
> If your concern is that you might obliviously misstep and be called
> out on it - then yes - you may - and you may actually need to think
> about it beforehand or learn from it afterwards.  Welcome to life.

Thanks for saying this, Alia.   I've been feeling a bit frustrated by this conversation too, and not sure how to articulate that.   I think you've hit the nail on the head.   When I think about this topic, I definitely consider myself more likely to unwittingly (I hope!) engage in some kind of bad behavior that would result in censure than being the subject of such bad behavior.   However, I would _much_ rather be taken aside and have that pointed out to me than continue it or "get away" with it.

That is the point of this effort: not to make anybody miserable, but to notice when things are going off the rails and put a stop to it before it really gets bad.   We are quite capable of improving this through successive approximation, whereas I don't think we can get it perfect on the first try.  We can't afford to just keep talking about it forever.