Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/28/2019 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 6/28/2019 11:28 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>>> Usually a situation developed because some process was flawed or due to a lack alignment between responsibility & accountability, etc. This also means granting a bit of trust in colleagues and acknowledging that everyone is doing their best to achieve what they think will best serve the situation/platform/org/etc. This can be hard to do, but it is a healthy step that can make an org stronger.
>> Hi Jason -
>>
>> The problem is that whatever trust I (we?) might want to grant in this
>> case is diminished by past actions such as the rfcplusplus bof, and in
>> the current instance, an explanation of behavior by the RSOC that
>> doesn't meet the smell test.
>>
>> This also begs the question of what were they actually trying to achieve
>> and whether we the community believe those to be worthy goals.
>>
>> A few of the other questions that should be asked in the post-mortem of
>> this stupidity* is "Why did the RSOC find it necessary to take the
>> actions it took without any community input whatsoever?" and "Did the
>> IAB have any pre-knowledge of the actions that were about to be taken?"
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> * With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive
>> term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the
>> above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning
>> action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of
>> malign intent open.    Feel free to come up with your own terms.
> I appreciate that you have put thought into your phrasing.  However, this
> term nonetheless fails to meet the bar for professional conduct required
> by RFC 3005.  We must treat each other with courtesy, even when we find
> events to be disconcerting.  Making observations about the situation is
> reasonable; attacking community members is out of bounds.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
> for the Sergeant-at-Arms

With respect  - no.   Please read above more closely.   The situation is 
stupid.  "post-mortem of this stupidity".  If you choose to attribute 
stupidity to a community member so be it.

In any event, the general model is to first have a private discussion 
with the prospective offendee describing what you found offensive and 
why before public sanction.  Please try and do all of us that courtesy 
the next time.

Mike