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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 31/10/2021 03:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> s/Unprofessional commentary/Uncivil commentary/
>
> Merriam-Webster Online says:
>
> Definition of uncivil
>
> 1 : not civilized : barbarous
> 2 : lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite uncivil remarks
> 3 : not conducive to civic harmony and welfare

I slept on this and decided that I prefer professional.  Civil is to me 
more social and less, well, professional.  This is about getting the 
work done, focussing on technical matters, with reason, logic, avoiding 
'ad hominem' and emotional outbursts (as the follow-up e-mails in the 
thread may show).

I would consider courteous, respectful, considerate but come back to 
professional as the best IMO.

Tom Petch



> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>     Thinking of the IETF standards process: https://xkcd.com/2530/
>
> On 31-Oct-21 13:34, Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely. That's why I threw together
>>>
>>> http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html
>>>
>>> <http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> in my defence, because every so often I get asked to justify my worth
>>> and existence to some random corporate apparatchik of some random
>>> company who has decided that he (and it's always a he. women just
>>> don't do that whole  'you must justify your right to exist to me'
>>> thing) dislikes my participation in an IETF mailing list.
>>
>> And that's why it's important to reinforce the idea that IETF
>> participants are NOT representatives of their employers, but at most
>> "sponsored" by them (or in many cases they pay their own way), and IETF
>> participants are expected to use their own best technical judgment about
>> what's good for the Internet as a whole.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
> .
>