Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
At 10:22 AM 15-08-2020, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>When you say "it was never implemented", is that RFC 6729 itself, or
>specifically the "written for this mailing list" part?

There was a message which did not make it to this mailing list.  The 
matter was discussed on this mailing list and the authors wrote the 
RFC to capture the proposed solution as a specification (RFC).  I 
meant that the specification was never implemented by the IETF.

>I'm not entirely sure what value eliding the word in question is supposed
>to provide?  I assume that it is "thick-skinned" but I am only guessing.

Your guess is correct.  There are words which I prefer not to use.  I 
would not prevent you or anyone else from using them.

>I also don't understand the reference to RFC 7154 being a rewrite to address
>the "unpleasantness" part, as "unpleasant" does not appear in the diff from
>RFC 3184 to RFC 7154
>(https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7154&url1=rfc3184), nor does the
>string "pleasant".

It was well-known that there was a "conduct" issue in the IETF.  One 
of the objectives of the rewrite was to provide an opportunity to 
anyone who disagrees with the document to ask for changes to it.  As 
an example, if you (used in general terms) were of the opinion that 
the guidelines should allow unpleasantness, you could have proposed 
that.  If that was the consensus, it would have been added into the document.

You won't find any of the two words as the thoughts are expressed 
through the sentences and informational references in that RFC.  The 
IESG can determine, as part of an IESG review, whether your messages 
constitute a breach of RFC 7154 if that the matter gets to that stage.

>Could you also clarify what you mean by "the new role option was tested
>previously"?  The referened message indicates that there had been a
>proposal for a new "facilitator" role, but I did not see or recall any
>attempt to actually try out someone in that role.  Perhaps you mean that it
>has been discussed previously but not attempted due to the results of that
>discussion?

Sorry, I must have chosen the wrong message.  The message in 2016 
announcing the experiment is at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/nQ-7XIKdLHvYlntNn7RB5gtnT3Q/ 
The experiment was concluded about a year after that; the results 
were viewed as a failure.

>The formatting suggests that these are intended to be "your idea here"

Yes.

>proposals for what the IETF might do, but they mostly seem to be statements
>relevant for general background as opposed to proposed actions; am I
>missing something?

Some of the ideas could be formalized after discussion.  Going 
directly to actions [1] could cause "process" violations.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Within the context of this exchange, I do not consider publishing 
a document as an action.