Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

If the document were an actual critique with examples of problems, and 
focused on the area (ART) that apparently has had problems, it would 
probably be a useful document.

Yours,

Joel

On 6/6/2022 9:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 08:56 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 06-Jun-22 23:56, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 6/6/22 04:20, tom petch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw an apology for the use of '...considered harmful'
>>>> recently and was suprised that that phrase was .. well
>>>> considered harmful
>>> This makes me wonder: how is making a reference to a letter
>>> that's rather famous in Computer Science history any
>>> different that referring to any established technical term or
>>> concept? Granted not absolutely everyone will have heard of
>>> that letter, but is it really hostile to newcomers to use
>>> well-established language of the subject domain that we work
>>> in when that language isn't, say, sexist or racist?   Is
>> it hostile
>>> to newcomers to refer to the end-to-end principle?
>> I suspect that, as always, context is everything. If somebody
>> had written
>> a draft "6to4 considered harmful" some years ago, I don't
>> think that
>> Keith or I would have been upset. (If you don't get that, see
>> RFC 3056.)
>> But if they had written a draft "Carpenter and Moore
>> considered harmful"
>> we would have been quite angry. Somewhere in between is
>> "Carpenter and Moore's
>> work considered harmful" - I'm really not sure how I would
>> have reacted to that.
>>
>> As a matter of fact that work was subject to a lot of
>> criticism, as was its
>> extension by RFC 3068, but I don't recall a single ad hominem
>> comment.
>>
>> We can be critical without being rude.
> Brian,
>
> I think the problems arise when almost any attempt to be
> critical is interpreted as being at least disrespectful even if
> not actually rude.
>
>     john
>
>
>