Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
>But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is 
>not listening.   Not trying to understand what the person who is 
>speaking to you has said.   Not trying to figure out if what they 
>said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a 
>sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in 
>contradicting your position.

Yes.

>We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent 
>spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our 
>community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and 
>simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways.

I'll add the message from Scott Brim below and comment.

At 10:20 27-08-2013, Scott Brim wrote:
>IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is 
>responsible for how things are said.  The shepherd -- or 
>supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance.

The shepherd would have to request PR-action on the grounds that 
there has been a BCP violation.  That would cause other process 
issues.  The community will remain quiet and the shepherd will take the fall.

At 12:08 27-08-2013, John Leslie wrote:
>    I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.

Me too.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy