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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 05 November 2021 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883D53A131B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aX57FZH_2mEb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F3D3A12FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.113.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 1A4NeVmN009787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Nov 2021 16:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1636069244; x=1636155644; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ZZmp8TOSmP9YlLGsBtUhYpAfPBw0kUVl6Aig11UkIjg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=NBiDIlXqMaJGE+mwjM+xQDH1M7A5Tf2iRzYQLiFOCHdYHWMB4JhWnQuBPBa6hKqCX 2o+29T5ZYTm/L4mqml5mKlO7I1j6OWPC5C1RNYAmTcUWjEpRDJ1D4KsD0GdQduDV19 Ss4JzwT2MHcS9Zox5ESiIPjLXRY/pLX3lIkskMeo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20211104154153.15771868@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 16:39:29 -0700
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)
In-Reply-To: <46d3c3ed-8e92-4a35-a546-a6c8bdf0bbee@dogfood.fastmail.com>
References: <163465875866.13316.15860075014903480611@ietfa.amsl.com> <EA85619D-83D6-409B-AAE7-C13850B18BA0@yahoo.co.uk> <CALaySJKeHDr7EJy4hf5GyS9W0PwpQ0C05TGtS4Gc_ihEFeQtsA@mail.gmail.com> <34ec2302-edc3-e180-be00-4d7200372d5f@network-heretics.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20211030023629.075c8550@elandnews.com> <47db1859-8201-9f37-0efd-aa09f4b1379b@network-heretics.com> <0F85A716-1371-4222-9DAE-23CCBD6E5382@ietf.org> <2bbef9bf-04b7-1862-5334-55aa1ee2ae43@cs.tcd.ie> <CAMm+LwiWaPbe59NE1qtbZ0uc-_NqCCA2=ReciJokt53-RoHQLA@mail.gmail.com> <a4fbed09-258d-5e80-5fa1-c7b9851bac3d@network-heretics.com> <46d3c3ed-8e92-4a35-a546-a6c8bdf0bbee@dogfood.fastmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yTWOaN1z14Jys_yVdSuUSjW5ido>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 18:00:10 -0000

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.

The actual issue is mistrust.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy