Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 12 June 2016 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 074E012D1DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zHYmQtee_T6V for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C7412B03C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bC6qW-0009rw-8S; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:58:40 -0400
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:58:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]
Message-ID: <7AC43822F0627B4F0227ED32@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160611235942.GA39331@verdi>
References: <m28tydvh5c.wl%randy@psg.com> <C172F8BC-6339-4762-A600-5AFEEFD3ED6A@piuha.net> <0c54dab2-89cc-6d0f-c8c7-a2a65249d04d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <6597503E-AB88-4A89-BF86-57B06E7C8FD3@consulintel.es> <0848b990-dec1-78e9-7845-1f5b683a49cd@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4DD051C3-841E-45EE-82F0-8AF4991685A7@consulintel.es> <72313874-f19d-1a0e-0ffa-cc34e380bb8a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FADEFCB4-034F-49A1-999E-D3DF78DBFC89@consulintel.es> <6ac2732b-3c16-f3ff-059c-4eb9e75df71f@comcast.net> <11AB7E04-7B52-492B-A94F-BD46A986EB23@piuha.net> <20160611235942.GA39331@verdi>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/g1mRtSq13BLCBLkV4BxhXIs1jEg>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 12 Jun 2016 14:58:48 -0000
Two observations. I will try to be brief. --On Saturday, June 11, 2016 19:59 -0400 John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote: >... > There is no actual record of the Secretariat doing so. This > may be a good thing; but leaving this uncertain doesn't help > the rest of us to understand what behaviors will be so > punished. To paraphrase part of the discussion about anti-harassment policies, our goal should be to educate, not to punish. Permanent posting bans are a necessary possibility when the community concludes that some behavior is so intrusive or obnoxious that the bans are needed to protect the integrity of the standards process, but anything short of that (including private advice, warnings, and temporary suspensions) need to be seen as "timeouts" or other mechanisms to help people understand the bounds of good behavior, that the community will not tolerate bad behavior and, preferably, to help the offenders learn from that and improve their ways. >> First, and perhaps most important, all discussion of role of >> families in meeting site decisions, priorities, etc. is of >> course completely OK. > > Keep in mind that for many, English isn't their first > language. > > "Discussion" being "completely OK" doesn't adequately hint > that particular expressions of a personal opinion are NOT OK. > Again, alas, it can be read differently by different folks. > :^( > > And opinions differ greatly as to what constitutes > disrespect. :^( Especially in any environment in which we have large cultural differences and many people who learned English after early childhood (some better than others) and we, though other distinctions, are trying to increase the size of both groups (and noting that the target in the example I'm about to use is deliberately facetious and independent of any group we are likely to encounter, not a comment about any group included or potentially included in the community): (i) SoAndSo has three heads, therefore may not have the right perspective to comment on protocols designed for one-headed people. (ii) SoAndSo has three heads, so comments and technical positions in the IETF from SoAndSo cannot be taken seriously. (iii) I don't believe that having three heads is natural and believe that having three heads is a matter of choice. I think those who exhibit such trends should get over it. (iv) I have no respect for anyone who has three heads. (v) I have no respect for anyone closely associated with people who have three heads, whether they have three heads of not. Now I'm not only a native first-language speaker of English, but had parents who forced me, from a tender age, to understand distinctions like those among the examples above. However, I have no confidence at all that I could tease them out from text in a language with which I had only reading and some writing familiarity, especially if that language and mine were associated with different cultural backgrounds. For all I know, some languages and cultures may not even consider them distinct. I think those who write comments to IETF lists, especially comments in discussion threads that have already shown themselves to be controversial and/or sensitive, need to understand that English does make those distinctions and to be careful about choices of wording and tone. I also think those of us who read such postings need to be sensitive to whether or not we are sure about whether some comment is intentionally disrespectful or obnoxious or whether it might be a mis-expression or mis-translation of some other thought. I hope the analogy between that view of those who post and read and the robustness principle is clear. And, again, if we can concentrate on education rather than punishment, it will help a lot, at least IMO. john
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Margaret Cullen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- IETF 100, IAOC perspective IAOC Chair
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Robin Wilton
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jakob Heitz
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John Levine
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michael StJohns
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… lloyd.wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Meeting discussions (was: IETF 100, IAOC perspect… S Moonesamy
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Lloyd Wood
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Newton
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Michael StJohns
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Allen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John Leslie
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta