It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF context)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2021-11-01, at 20:48, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Professionalism includes factual accuracy.

Folks,

it’s a trap.

Somewhere in the distant past of this thread, there was a discussion about a code of conduct, that included the word professional (conduct, that is, or “behavior”).  What was meant was probably civil, productive behavior.

Now somehow, discussions of this kind can be easily exploded by changing the subject subtly.  So we moved from professional conduct via professional documents (*) to professionally designed (i.e., clairvoyant) protocols, and I think we haven’t quite arrived at professional hobbyist tools, but sure soon will.  So it is no longer possible to read the (sometimes quite useful) comments on the original question.

I honestly don’t know if the tendency of discussions to explode this way is due to an actual strategy of some participants, or if I should apply Hanlon’s razor [1] and “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” (not a very professionally phrased statement, but quite popular).

Let’s be a bit more, er, professional in using this list.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) Hey, I can do that too: A technical document is not very professional if it measures bitrate in “kbps” and “mpbs” [sic].  Even my mobile phone company can do better.  Let’s see if I can get my own thread here :-)  Please don’t.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor