Re: Bad/Good ideas and damage control by experienced participants

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/22/22 15:29, Joel Halpern wrote:

> Keith, in my and many other people's experience, in an open forum, if 
> rudeness is not policed, and more importantly not publicly objected to 
> when it occurs, it will occur more and more often and get worse.
>
>
> I understand your objection to the abstract "rudenss".  So, for me, I 
> am happy to replace that with more specific behavioral descriptions 
> such as "objecting to the person instead of the technical point", and 
> probably other similar descriptions.  From what I can tell from your 
> email, even with more specific terms of reference you object to having 
> such restrictions enforced.   In an ideal world, I might agree with 
> you.  But as far as I can tell that is not the world we live in. 

To some extent we simply disagree.  I have yet to see policing of 
rudeness that's not counterproductive, and often worse.   And it gives 
yet another tool to those who play dirty in IETF - who use such 
accusations as ways to avoid arguing ideas on their technical merits or 
lack thereof.

And I've seen years' worth of good people's good work destroyed in this 
way.   Yes, in IETF.

But I'd be more-or-less fine with a rule against "objecting to the 
person instead of the technical point".   The point is, mere vague 
"rudeness" is not a good reason to sanction someone.  There are too many 
kinds of input that some people consider "rude" that are arguably necessary.

Keith