Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 31 October 2021 08:55 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 2DDE63A0890 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 01:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 nH30JDVgzXEY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 01:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14403A08A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 01:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.32.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 19V8tIRY025384; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 01:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1635670528; x=1635756928; i=@elandsys.com; bh=VtXZEyeocjrmSUOiR8Ko7qFIcXo53Usu+8l2aBt1+LA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Jj/O5oJjrhoNpfc2voDRFU3tCHuT4ts1zxTzD23vBIUFaxgkKLdjtqy5zAfK6ZEYk bc1Dw97dzGFLqXHOCy+vvanpu6JNnpm/E8LhLr1WQtVi+nsqWYehutGklgFHIMEBS4 GEVG8N2S/eYpb/XC9Xnghd64YgYNzRtfuEYuZlT0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20211030164017.0c20a5c8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 01:37:51 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)
In-Reply-To: <47db1859-8201-9f37-0efd-aa09f4b1379b@network-heretics.com>
References: <163465875866.13316.15860075014903480611@ietfa.amsl.com> <EA85619D-83D6-409B-AAE7-C13850B18BA0@yahoo.co.uk> <CALaySJKeHDr7EJy4hf5GyS9W0PwpQ0C05TGtS4Gc_ihEFeQtsA@mail.gmail.com> <34ec2302-edc3-e180-be00-4d7200372d5f@network-heretics.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20211030023629.075c8550@elandnews.com> <47db1859-8201-9f37-0efd-aa09f4b1379b@network-heretics.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W-DqdIK9AVDu0FFFe9XAQkqJz4o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 08:55:39 -0000
Hi Keith, At 03:31 PM 30-10-2021, Keith Moore wrote: >For me a lot of the problem is that the word "professional" has many >different meanings, and is therefore ambiguous. As a point of information, the text was added in December 2013 based on feedback. I verified whether the change was in accordance with the "process" documents. >One interpretation of "professional behavior" seems to be norms of a >corporate workplace. But corporate workplaces have many restraints >on speech and behavior which aren't appropriate for IETF. For >example, publicly criticizing your employer, or its leadership, or >its policies, or its products, can get you fired. But IETF should be >open to public criticism, even by (perhaps especially by) its participants. > >Another interpretation of "professional" refers to a group of >persons who are all make their living in the same trade. It can >even carry with it the assumption that "professionals" are >privileged somehow. (There's a joke: "Why don't sharks eat >lawyers?" "Professional courtesy.") But IETF is open to >participation by everyone, and its participants should treat each >other as peers, regardless of how they earn their living or even >whether they are employed. > >It's hard to escape the impression that some of those insisting on >"professional behavior" are looking for a way to exclude those who >they deem not qualified, so as to get out of the way of the Big >Corporations who want IETF to do what they want it to do. > >Anyway, if "unprofessional behavior" is not defined, those in power >can use any deviation from "normal" as an excuse to sanction participants. The professional courtesy is not a one-way street. There was a time when the views of those who were not regular attendees were ignored during Last-Calls and the Area Directors called it "consensus". To be fair, there were some Area Directors who did not follow to that practice. >But I also realize that maybe this doesn't matter much, as the scope >of this document is limited to the IETF list which is of decreasing >relevance anyway. The IETF list used to serve as the primary forum >of the community, its center, and also its conscience. This draft >along with several other IMO extremely harmful measures that have >been taken in recent years (including the creation of gendispatch) >narrows the scope of the IETF list so much that it effectively >destroys most of the utility that the IETF list used to have, and >with it the organization's core values. The IETF mailing list is no longer the marketplace of the IETF. It weakens the IETF. The shared values is bound to change with newer participants. There are also changes outside the IETF which influence those values. >I don't know why people think that the solution to traffic overload >is to keep siloing discussions ad infinitum, and I would argue that >one of IETF's core problems has long been the over-fragmentation of >discussions. It is probably easier to solve an issue by having a narrow scope. I assume that some of the mailing list subscribers know the story of the three blind men and an elephant. It explains what can happen when by having a narrow scope. >Or maybe the fragmentation of the IETF list was part of a deliberate >effort to subvert the IETF into being a forum that only serves the >Internet industry, rather than one trying to serve the broader >Internet community? It is better, in my opinion, to focus on whether the IETF is serving the broader community instead of whether there was a deliberate effort (or not) to serve the industry only. >These rules don't really apply to discussions like the IETF list, >even in the United States. Governments within the US are forbidden >from penalizing most kinds of speech. But those restrictions on >government don't prevent the moderation of discussions hosted by >non-governmental organizations such as IETF, or for that matter >discussions on social media sites. > >But it may well be true that US citizens and longtime US residents, >accustomed to having few government prohibitions on speech, are >somewhat more outspoken than those from elsewhere. Some participants may not be understand why there are debates about "free speech" in a place where people are expected to discuss technical documents. The purpose of this exchange was to understand what the concern was. Regards, S. Moonesamy
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lloyd W
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… STARK, BARBARA H
- Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Sander Steffann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Miles Fidelman
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stephen Farrell
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context David Farmer
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Andrew Campling
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Jay Daley
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Stephen Farrell
- RE: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Joel M. Halpern
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF contex… Carsten Bormann
- Relitigating history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Scott Bradner
- Re: It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF co… Lloyd W
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- interface ID (was Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Masataka Ohta
- Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Eliot Lear
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ancient history (was Accurate … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Greg Shepherd
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Why IPv6 failed [Re: Accurate history [Re: "profe… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Geoff Huston
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Erik Kline
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… ned+ietf