Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

I do hope this conversation can get back to the many points in Mike's
messages that need consideration and evaluation to effectively move forward.

Kathleen

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 AM Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Now there's some truth-varnishing going on :)  I'm not disagreeing with
> your tone, Keith, I'm saying your argument is based on a false premise.
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree with your efforts to police my speech, and think further
>> parsing of Mike’s speech has passed the point of diminishing returns.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I assume you mean that you disagree with her (and the Sergeant-at-Arms')
>> evaluation that Mike was using unprofessional language?  Even if that's the
>> case, it's clear that the intent is to address tone, not content.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics..com
>> <[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> With respect, I believe Alissa was incorrect in her assertions.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that
>>> the issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not
>>> anything to do with his arguments.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, what is being talked about is the suppression of necessary and
>>>> constructive speech out of a misguided idea that telling the truth is
>>>> disrespectful.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith.  They're talking about
>>>> treating fellow contributors with respect.  There's a big gap between those
>>>> two ideas.
>>>>
>>>> --Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <
>>>> moore@network-heretics..com <[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I believe such rules (or something akin to them [*]) are essential to
>>>>> productive technical discussion and therefore essential to IETF.  I also
>>>>> believe that efforts to prevent people from telling the unvarnished truth
>>>>> about a technical mechanism, or a political one, are harmful to IETF in the
>>>>> most extreme sense possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people.
>>>>> But criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s
>>>>> a risk that people will take such criticism personally. “
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > believe "Crocker's Rules" are incompatible with the IETF process and
>>>>> > as such notifications via IETF's communication channels about whether
>>>>> > someone adheres to Crocker's Rules or not, don't serve a purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen