MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAChr6SwS56sOmZEfjsX7X6_Wut1gX08wcqfrt65AwOCrtiFrJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAChr6SwS56sOmZEfjsX7X6_Wut1gX08wcqfrt65AwOCrtiFrJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Box <chris.box.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 19:24:09 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CACJ6M15xZX_aGuUut7yaKwYi-9Fc=eJDz7e+H1e00KUbVvWhuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Notice of moderator intervention
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076aba106515281f2"
Message-ID-Hash: JLCMUMUMETMQ6HB7UVH5JAKNU4S7MOVZ
Precedence: list
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fFzqIJPdDC8v6OrHYSgNlgtaouI>

--00000000000076aba106515281f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Everyone,

It's clear from the feedback we've received that most of the community
thinks Rich's message on balance wasn't being uncivil. Having taken that on
board, I am happy to withdraw the assertion that it was.

I agree with Brian that it would have been better to make the same point
such that it was clear that it was about all participants and not one in
particular. (Brian suggested s/you/somebody/.) But even without that, the
community thinks a line wasn't crossed so we'll respect that.

Regarding the playground metaphor, I was pointed to Radia Perlman's "Miss
Manners" plenary talk 24 years ago, in which she also refers to Robert
Fulgham: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld007.htm.
So clearly the reference itself is fine when applied to IETF participants
as a whole.

I'll take the opportunity to reply to some of the thoughtful points that
have been raised.

On Fri, 8 May 2026 at 02:09, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

>    'We are happy to discuss suggestions for how to convey the same
>      message in an
>     appropriate way if you would like to discuss that.'
>
> The intention is good.  I would not use that sentence in an email
> exchange with a participant who does not speak English in his/her
> daily life as it could be viewed as patronizing {1}."
>
> SM is right. That one is way too much. It should just be a much more brief
> and diplomatic version, like "You're welcome to raise the concern again."
>

That wording was inherited from before our time, and until now I've seen it
as purely helpful. Thank you both for pointing out that sometimes it is not.

When a new mod team is appointed under RFC9945 there will need to be
discussion about procedures. This will include deciding whether email
templates should be used, or made bespoke to the case. I'd like the team
(whoever they turn out to be) to incorporate this into their thinking

John Klensin also made a couple of numbered points. With #1 I'm in two
minds about desiring "*a high level of tolerance for behavior, choices of
language and metaphor*". One the one hand it's a beneficial property for
all participants to possess. However having high tolerance inevitably
brings with it the risk of tolerance of some forms of uncivil language.
Maybe there is a form of words that can be arrived at that strikes the
right balance? I hope so.

With #2 I agree that people are unlikely to be deceived by a reference to
"anyone claiming"; such phrases are typically usually clearly attributable
to a person or persons.

Rich, my apologies for saying your message reached the level of uncivil
commentary. After community feedback, I have now mentally adjusted where
the line should be drawn.

Chris

>

--00000000000076aba106515281f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Everyone,</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s clear fro=
m the feedback we&#39;ve received that most of the community thinks Rich=
9;s message on balance wasn&#39;t being uncivil. Having taken that on board=
, I am happy to withdraw the assertion that it was.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>I agree with Brian that it would have been better to make the same point =
such that it was clear that it was about all participants and not one in pa=
rticular. (Brian suggested=C2=A0s/you/somebody/.) But even without that, th=
e community thinks a line wasn&#39;t crossed so we&#39;ll respect that.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>Regarding the playground metaphor, I was pointed to R=
adia Perlman&#39;s &quot;Miss Manners&quot; plenary talk 24 years ago, in w=
hich she also refers to Robert Fulgham:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.or=
g/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld007.htm">https://www.ietf.org/proceedi=
ngs/53/slides/plenary-3/sld007.htm</a>. So clearly the reference itself is =
fine when applied to IETF participants as a whole.</div><div><br></div><div=
>I&#39;ll take the opportunity to reply to some of the thoughtful points th=
at have been raised.</div><div><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, 8 May 202=
6 at 02:09, Rob Sayre &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sayrer@gmail.com">sayrer@gmail.=
com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-le=
ft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0&#39;We are happy to discuss suggestions for how=
 to convey the same</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0message in an<br>=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 appropriate way if you would like to discuss that.&#39;<br><br>The i=
ntention is good.=C2=A0 I would not use that sentence in an email <br>excha=
nge with a participant who does not speak English in his/her <br>daily life=
 as it could be viewed as patronizing {1}.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>S=
M is right. That one is way too much. It should just be a much more brief a=
nd diplomatic version, like=C2=A0&quot;You&#39;re welcome to raise the conc=
ern again.&quot;</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That wor=
ding was inherited from before our time, and until now I&#39;ve seen it as =
purely helpful. Thank you both for pointing out that sometimes it is not.</=
div><div><br></div><div>When a new mod team is appointed under RFC9945 ther=
e will need to be discussion about procedures. This will include deciding w=
hether email templates should be used, or made bespoke to the case. I&#39;d=
 like the team (whoever they turn out to be) to incorporate this into their=
 thinking</div><div><br></div><div>John Klensin also made a couple of numbe=
red points. With #1 I&#39;m in two minds about desiring &quot;<i>a high lev=
el of tolerance for behavior, choices of language and metaphor</i>&quot;. O=
ne the one hand it&#39;s a beneficial property for all participants to poss=
ess. However having high tolerance inevitably brings with it the risk of to=
lerance of some forms of uncivil language. Maybe there is a form of words t=
hat can be arrived at that strikes the right balance? I hope so.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>With #2 I agree that people are unlikely to be deceived by a=
 reference to &quot;anyone claiming&quot;; such phrases are typically usual=
ly clearly attributable to a person or persons.</div><div><br></div><div>Ri=
ch, my apologies for saying your message reached the level of uncivil comme=
ntary. After community feedback, I have now mentally adjusted where the lin=
e should be drawn.</div><div><br></div><div>Chris</div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>

--00000000000076aba106515281f2--