hi daniel, > Of course I am flattered by your trust in the RIPE community.
don't take it too personally :) > I am worried about just the abuse that you mention in the IETF > context. I see the RIPE community changing and I remain concerned > about abuse in the future. Yes we need to evolve our CoC *** with the > appropriate checks and balances against abuse ***. way back when, i was banned from the nanog list, likely for some kind of snark. the poolpah which followed drove nanog from merit management to a steering committee of an independent organisation. so your argument has my sympathy for sure, even without the ietf turning authoritarian. but, though i can not walk in the shoes of those who the coc is intended to protect, i have seen things i would rather not have, and the stories seem widespread, disgusting, and enraging. > The violent reactions I get when I say this are worrisome and they > hurt! well, the level of discourse has tended to the strident. my assumption is that it [ partially ] stems from frustration. i hope that progress should help ameliorate this. when i warned of the weaponisation of the coc in the ietf, it was meant as a hint. but, imiho, in both cultures, the danger lies in the definitions and judging of bad behavior, not so much that ostracism is the punishment. and how do we clarify behavior without going down a rathole of complexity? we need to strongly defend against sexual, religious, ... harassment. i assume there is no disagreement on this. but the ietf wants to criminalize snark on a mailing list. how does the ripe community reasonably and simply deal with the harrassment without succumbing to the disease of behavior fascism? randy
