Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, at 10:39, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 02:55 PM 04-11-2021, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >So back to the topic:
> >
> >What can we do here?  We need to find SOME wording that gives a (to 
> >use a sports metaphor) "play the ball, not the player" - and have a 
> >SAA who can give you a timeout if you start kicking a player rather 
> >than kicking the ball.
> >
> >I'm not sure I'm seeing an answer in this thread yet which compels 
> >me more than "unprofessional" or "uncivil".  Is there a word for 
> >"focusing on a proxy for the issue rather than the actual issue", or 
> >"repeating the same thing over and over without listening to, or by 
> >mis-characterising, responses" because that's often what I see 
> >underlying poor behaviour on our IETF lists, and we do need some 
> >boundary on what's allowed.
> 
> Sometimes, a message about "conduct" is sent to a mailing list to ask 
> each side to pause the discussion instead of pushing for an opinion 
> which is completely at odds with the other side.

There is another issue with asking for discussions to slow down, which is that mailing lists have people from many different timezones and with other things going on in their lives.  It's quite unfair for those who aren't awake at the time for the conversation to move on so fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

So it's quite reasonable to say "you're allowed to send up to three messages per day and then back off and let somebody else speak".  This is more obvious in an in-person meeting, where it's pretty clear if a couple of people are monopolising the room and not giving anybody else a chance to speak.

Likewise, if a couple of people are yelling at each other in an in-person meeting, the body language of everybody else makes it quite clear that they are getting out of line - but a similar escalation of emotionality on a mailing list doesn't have that real-time dampener effect of the audience feedback you get in a real room - so a more explicit "let's take a pause, go away and think about what's important here" does need to happen.

The problem, and I think you identify it well here, is when that "let's take a pause" is used with an underlying "and hopefully you'll just go away because I don't like the point you're trying to make". 

Using a pause as a way to make people go away is not cool - but using it to stop somebody saying the same thing over and over, forcefully, and not waiting for others (who might not be awake or paying attention right now) to have a chance to contribute to the conversation first - that's reasonable.  Conversations shouldn't be dominated by those who have the time to write a lot of email at all hours of the day.

Regards,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]