Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I think rude or other behavior can/is defined by groups in public or
private, it just needs a manager and a policy, which makes a real system
alive. I don't believe in RFC until there is a real system to follow it, so
we need to check if there is a real system or if we are measuring its
performance per time.

Best Wishes,
AB

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 1:22 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yes, we use "rude" in email.  Yes, the documents use "professional
>   or "unprofessional" to which you have objected.  So proposed better
> wording.  Just saying "do not limit things that way" does not help us
> get to a state that works better for the community.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> PS: I recognize that there have been some (we can debate how often)
> abuses of these rules to suppress dissent.  I agree that is also very
> bad for the community.
>
> On 6/11/2022 7:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> > On 6/11/22 18:12, Joel Halpern wrote:
> >
> >> If I am reading your email correctly, most of your concern is about
> >> the vague definition and vague applicaiton of "rude".
> >>
> >> As far as I know, the terms of reference use terms like "personal
> >> attack" and other descriptions which are much less vague.  We tend to
> >> use "rude" as the shorthand for the discussions of the topic rather
> >> than reciting the defintions and descriptions in the RFCs.
> >>
> >> Do you see the RFCs referring to "rude"?
> >>
> > I'm mostly responding to Jay here.   But the RFCs use derivatives of
> > "[un]professional" which are equally problematic.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
>