Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sat, 11 June 2016 23:59 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 2807612D17A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham 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 QsXESs0GN1m3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B2B12B00D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 68409C9426; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:59:42 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]
Message-ID: <20160611235942.GA39331@verdi>
References: <m28tydvh5c.wl%randy@psg.com> <C172F8BC-6339-4762-A600-5AFEEFD3ED6A@piuha.net> <0c54dab2-89cc-6d0f-c8c7-a2a65249d04d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <6597503E-AB88-4A89-BF86-57B06E7C8FD3@consulintel.es> <0848b990-dec1-78e9-7845-1f5b683a49cd@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4DD051C3-841E-45EE-82F0-8AF4991685A7@consulintel.es> <72313874-f19d-1a0e-0ffa-cc34e380bb8a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FADEFCB4-034F-49A1-999E-D3DF78DBFC89@consulintel.es> <6ac2732b-3c16-f3ff-059c-4eb9e75df71f@comcast.net> <11AB7E04-7B52-492B-A94F-BD46A986EB23@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11AB7E04-7B52-492B-A94F-BD46A986EB23@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RV41AvHmIlh3kxICKnzNMgx54SQ>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 23:59:50 -0000
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> 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 <john@jlc.net>
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Margaret Cullen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- IETF 100, IAOC perspective IAOC Chair
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Robin Wilton
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jakob Heitz
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John Levine
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michael StJohns
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… lloyd.wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Meeting discussions (was: IETF 100, IAOC perspect… S Moonesamy
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Lloyd Wood
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Newton
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Michael StJohns
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Allen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John Leslie
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta