Re: Notice of moderator intervention

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Chris,

Not to complain or disagree, but maybe to suggest a different
perspective that might be helpful in thinking about applying
criteria...

When I read Rich's initial note, I thought the "playground" metaphor
was a bit "off".  Not something I would spend time complaining about,
but something I could imagine causing some irritation (where
"irritation" is not necessary equivalent to "offence", much less an
"attack".  However, someone did complain and it was certainly correct
for you to notify Rich of that complaint (and do so off-list unless
he requested that you forwarded it).  He should be aware that some in
the community are sensitive to that sort of metaphor and now he is
aware of it.  If I see any specific problem there, it is that the
language of your note seems to assume that the language was
sufficiently inappropriate to require moderator action if repeated.
I'm not sure that is true and maybe you should review the wording of
such first-stage notes to recognize the boundary between some
statement or behavior that is, at worst, marginal (such as a
possibly-unfortunate choice of metaphor) and something that is
unambiguously offensive or an attack.   As an example of the other
side of that somewhat-fuzzy boundary, Rich did not cause someone a
nasty name or question their intelligence.

I do see two other, more fundamental, issues in this that might
justify more thinking about 

(1) The IETF participant community includes people from a very broad
range of experiences, cultural environments, education, initial
languages, and so on and we are striving to make that range even
broader.  One implication of that is the obligation to "extend
respect and courtesy to their colleagues at all times".  Another, at
least IMO, should be that we develop and exhibit a high level of
tolerance for behavior, and choices of language and metaphor, that
might be more reasonable and appropriate in the context of those
different experiences that in the context of others.  That is, again
IMO, especially important when it comes to defending a third party
against language or behavior they might, themselves, not have
considered important enough to be offended by or complain about.
While that might require a certain amount of mind reading, "be
patient with each other and how they express themselves" might still
be a reasonable additional guideline, if only to ward off complaints
that someone lodging a particular complaint is being disrespectful.

(2) Even "impersonal discussions" may require some flexibility and
tolerance.  As an example somewhat more extreme than anything the
IETF has seen, suppose we got into a discussion of geography and
someone, let's call them Clarabell, repeatedly and loudly insists
that the earth is flat and is the only participant taking that
position.  Suppose they also persist in ignoring evidence like
pictures from space, claiming that the evidence is all a hoax and
getting even more insistent.   I see little difference between
someone saying "anyone claiming, despite evidence on the list as well
as elsewhere and worldwide general consensus that the earth is flat
is ignoring facts, being disruptive, and behaving like a clown" and
"Clarabell is behaving like the clown as implied by the descriptor
they, and others, apply to him and being disruptive in the process",
even though the latter is definitely not impersonal.  In particular,
the former is not going to deceive anyone about who is being
discussed.

I hope and assume that any response from moderators would focus
almost exclusively in the disruption rather than, e.g., allowing
Clarabell the defense that those criticizing their behavior were not
being sufficiently impersonal in their comments and attacks on them
and their behavior.

I hope all of the above is obvious to everyone, but some of the
discussions seem to be creeping toward an overly-rigid interpretation
of the rules you have stated.
   
    john



--On Thursday, May 7, 2026 16:32 +0100 Chris Box
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 16:19, Jeffrey Walton <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Is it safe to say the Moderators stepped in without being asked?
> 
> 
> It's not safe to say that. We received a complaint from a
> longstanding list participant, and it wasn't Daniel Bernstein.
> 
> 
>> Perhaps the moderators should stay in their lane until a real
>> dispute
> 
> arises or asked to intervene.
>> 
> 
> To clarify, here's the standard we are seeking to apply.
> 
> RFC 7154: IETF Guidelines for Conduct
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154.html>
> 
>    1. IETF participants .
> 
>    2. IETF participants have impersonal discussions.
>       We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument rather than
> through
> 
>       intimidation or personal attack.
> 
> https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/uncivil-commentary.md
> 
> Attacks can come in several forms. They include personally
> attacking people for their opinions, beliefs, or ideas rather than
> criticizing the opinions, beliefs, and ideas themselves. They
> include name-calling, insulting, demeaning, and belittling people.
> 
> We welcome community input on whether this standard is the correct
> one, and if we're applying it in the right way.
> 
> Chris