IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: discussion style and respect

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 12 June 2015 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8541A9079 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 sIxoL9ptGfuh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1E11A906F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.138.1.106] ([176.12.107.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5CAo1Hf024885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:50:54 -0700
Message-ID: <557AB950.3010005@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:49:52 +0100
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
References: <3BF40BF3-B7EB-4571-BD7B-D394D4F0CB6C@ietf.org> <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <F56A33D90543E4A17CDC2875@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <F56A33D90543E4A17CDC2875@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kvWBTAXp4EOcGqcyv087QNI8Lw0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:51:28 -0000

On 6/11/2015 12:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> The IETF model of insisting that anyone can participate and that
> everyone who does participate does so strictly as an individual
...
> also avoids the advantages of enforceable rules, e.g., that one
> either behaves like an adult professional or gets out (or
> doesn't get in).  


This is objectively wrong.

We have rules.  We have been known to enforce them.  The consequences
can (and have) include banishment.

That we do not have entrance qualifiers does not in any way relate to
whether we have suspension or termination rules, nevermind whether we
enforce them.

The core issues are that we do not adequately define unacceptable
behavior and we do essentially no enforcement, except in the most
extreme cases and for the most marginalized participant.

This effectively constitutes encouragement of recidivists.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email