IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Sat, 30 October 2021 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
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 5B9CD3A0A01 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 05:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 FElSdg9Nj_71 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 05:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 822803A0A00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 05:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2601:204:e600:411:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd] (unknown [IPv6:2601:204:e600:411:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48CB5AE269; Sat, 30 Oct 2021 14:34:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <be87c6ee-f9f8-5b87-299e-2a5c0324c231@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 05:34:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <163465875866.13316.15860075014903480611@ietfa.amsl.com> <EA85619D-83D6-409B-AAE7-C13850B18BA0@yahoo.co.uk> <CALaySJKeHDr7EJy4hf5GyS9W0PwpQ0C05TGtS4Gc_ihEFeQtsA@mail.gmail.com> <34ec2302-edc3-e180-be00-4d7200372d5f@network-heretics.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20211030023629.075c8550@elandnews.com>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
Subject: Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20211030023629.075c8550@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iK-UWNQg4sdCu3xqdH8xwl_yFD4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 12:35:00 -0000

As far as I am concerned there is only one correct context in which the word "professional" should be used at the IETF, which is to qualify the documents we produce.

On 10/30/21 04:39, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Keith,
> At 03:53 PM 20-10-2021, Keith Moore wrote:
>> The aggregate effect of such efforts is to make IETF more like an echo chamber, in which everyone is expected to "know their place" - i.e. know to not express views that might conflict with the views of those in power, or otherwise know the unwritten "rules".   This is, after all, often what is expected of "professionals" in their workplaces, which is yet another reason why "professional" is a poor criterion for describing which behavior is appropriate or not in IETF discussions.
> 
> I read comments about the word "professional" in a RFC over the years.  Here is another comment [1] (translated with Yandex):
> 
>    "Unfortunately, this RFC feels obliged to add that it is necessary to behave
>     in a professional manner as if amateurs were avinee brutes and that it is
>     only in the context of work that one can be civilized."
> 
> The sentence with that word was the "IETF Consensus" when the RFC was approved for publication.  The "know their place" was removed during the revision of the document.  There isn't anything in the RFC which prohibits a participant from expressing his/her disagreement with an Area Director's decision.
> 
> One of the points which you raised is about "a system in which people are placed in a series of levels with different importance or status".  The RFC does not establish a system with different levels of importance or status.
> 
> The underlying value for some participants is most likely related to https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does A participant residing in another country might not have the background information to understand those participants.  It takes many years to understand all that.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. http://r.elandsys.com/r/86822


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email