Re: CoC at this week's meeting

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

In hindsight, I can see that while I referred to the Code of Conduct, 
keeping a civil attitude, and even was directly referring to the 
ombudsperson, I also see now that I explicitly mentioned that I do not 
see a current problem in the WG or the list.

One the one hand, it makes me sad that it is necessary to spell that out 
to grown people. On the other hand, I can see that that is a part of 
proper conduct.

"Sometimes valuable people seem clueless at first.", I recently read on 
an SDO's official slide, followed by "Assumptions make an 🍑 out of you 
and me". It took me a few minutes to find myself 100% agreeing with that 
and that I just learned a bit more about myself.

That said, chairs speak only for the conduct on the list and (interim) 
sessions, etc., I think - i.e, the things highlighted by note well. If 
people want to "make an 🍑" out of themselves in private discussions, 
initially that is... well, a private discussion. We can encourage 
negatively affected people to bring that up to the chairs, ADs, or 
ombudspeople, but I would like to add carefully here that we are neither 
pedagogues and nor should we make too many assumptions ourselves.

Trying to be a nice person helps and sometimes that includes telling 
people to be nice to others.

Viele Grüße,

Henk



On 13.11.21 22:13, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/12/21 6:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> While it is important not to imply that there are no problems, it is 
>> also important to recognize when the group does things right.
> 
> Yes, absolutely, and that's a very good point.  But the point
> I was trying to make is that you may not know if there are
> problems between participants that don't show up during meetings
> or on the mailing list, because they're expressed through
> private email or other communications. A "no problems here"
> message is going to be received very differently by 1) people
> who really are behaving professionally, 2) people who are
> on the receiving end of hostile off-list behavior, and 3)
> people who are being hostile off-list.  I think it's clearly
> the case that most people working in the IETF do treat each
> other well, but if there weren't some serious problems from time
> to time that happen without wg leadership awareness, I wouldn't
> have said anything.
> 
> Melinda
> 
>