Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Now there's some truth-varnishing going on :)  I'm not disagreeing with
your tone, Keith, I'm saying your argument is based on a false premise.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I disagree with your efforts to police my speech, and think further
> parsing of Mike’s speech has passed the point of diminishing returns.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I assume you mean that you disagree with her (and the Sergeant-at-Arms')
> evaluation that Mike was using unprofessional language?  Even if that's the
> case, it's clear that the intent is to address tone, not content.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> With respect, I believe Alissa was incorrect in her assertions.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that
>> the issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not
>> anything to do with his arguments.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No, what is being talked about is the suppression of necessary and
>>> constructive speech out of a misguided idea that telling the truth is
>>> disrespectful.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith.  They're talking about
>>> treating fellow contributors with respect.  There's a big gap between those
>>> two ideas.
>>>
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics..com
>>> <[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe such rules (or something akin to them [*]) are essential to
>>>> productive technical discussion and therefore essential to IETF.  I also
>>>> believe that efforts to prevent people from telling the unvarnished truth
>>>> about a technical mechanism, or a political one, are harmful to IETF in the
>>>> most extreme sense possible.
>>>>
>>>> [*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people.
>>>> But criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s
>>>> a risk that people will take such criticism personally. “
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > believe "Crocker's Rules" are incompatible with the IETF process and
>>>> > as such notifications via IETF's communication channels about whether
>>>> > someone adheres to Crocker's Rules or not, don't serve a purpose.
>>>>
>>>>