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> Sat, 30 October 2021 11:41 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 F09963A0901 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 04:41:49 -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 wg7zRoyAhZSi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 04:41:45 -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 635ED3A0855 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.155.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 19UBfVbg002403; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 04:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1635594101; x=1635680501; i=@elandsys.com; bh=sri780SEoSqHvb3+KgHYiU5AgSkSTUUdNRZunUmSGGU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=eUH6LL4hpPCR9yxpAZ+TX12SPTLjG3fKFzGcRbqUgp1hCLCvEsomv5nZbne15Nafe AEGZpuG7gSOuBG3lHgmeRmiv91z+aO0gZlPPxj6aCE/oXcW0vYw9WUO3pcoVV2F6GF rG7UHiU9kHkSvdqmA+P3udoWaGctx4Z8Rc4CTUt8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20211030023629.075c8550@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 04:39:41 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: 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: <34ec2302-edc3-e180-be00-4d7200372d5f@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XJK2ewPep2BU0DHPw0s3WXCh5Eg>
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: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 11:41:50 -0000

Hi Keith,
At 03:53 PM 20-10-2021, Keith Moore wrote:
>The aggregate effect of such efforts is to make IETF more like an 
>echo chamber, in which everyone is expected to "know their place" - 
>i.e. know to not express views that might conflict with the views of 
>those in power, or otherwise know the unwritten "rules".   This is, 
>after all, often what is expected of "professionals" in their 
>workplaces, which is yet another reason why "professional" is a poor 
>criterion for describing which behavior is appropriate or not in 
>IETF discussions.

I read comments about the word "professional" in a RFC over the 
years.  Here is another comment [1] (translated with Yandex):

   "Unfortunately, this RFC feels obliged to add that it is necessary to behave
    in a professional manner as if amateurs were avinee brutes and that it is
    only in the context of work that one can be civilized."

The sentence with that word was the "IETF Consensus" when the RFC was 
approved for publication.  The "know their place" was removed during 
the revision of the document.  There isn't anything in the RFC which 
prohibits a participant from expressing his/her disagreement with an 
Area Director's decision.

One of the points which you raised is about "a system in which people 
are placed in a series of levels with different importance or 
status".  The RFC does not establish a system with different levels 
of importance or status.

The underlying value for some participants is most likely related to 
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does 
A participant residing in another country might not have the 
background information to understand those participants.  It takes 
many years to understand all that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://r.elandsys.com/r/86822