Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM, S Moonesamy  wrote:

> Hi Phillip,
>
> At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
>> actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.
>>
>
> I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-**3184bis  During the
> discussions (see thread at http://www.ietf.org/mail-**
> archive/web/diversity/current/**msg00201.html)about
>  the draft it was suggested there should be consequences of not
> following the code of conduct.  What action would you suggest against:
>
>  (i)  the Area Director in a case such as the above?
>
>  (ii) the Working Group chair in a case such as the above?
>

In that case they were the same person. Which I think was a major
structural problem in that nobody on the IESG was prepared to stand up to
him.

So I would start off by not allowing that situation to occur in the first
place.


But in general where you have a WG chair that shows blatant bias you have
to get rid of that WG chair.

If DNSSEC had been my product I would have pushed VeriSign to do more than
appeal the Opt-in debacle, I would have litigated.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[S Moonesamy]

Hi Phillip,
At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair 
actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.


I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis  During the 
discussions (see thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00201.html 
)about the draft it was suggested there should be consequences of not 
following the code of conduct.  What action would you suggest against:


 (i)  the Area Director in a case such as the above?

 (ii) the Working Group chair in a case such as the above?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm.

I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the
'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the
exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap
designed to gull the WG into agreeing that they know nothing about the
problem whereupon the original proposer will gladly provide the poor naifs
with their pearls of wisdom.

The correct response in such situations is in my book, 'you may speak for
yourself and your own level of expertise but do not accuse others of
sharing your inabilities'.


I also find it very rude when people try to cut short a discussion with
recourse to bogus points of processor try to trump a discussion with
recourse to an authority that I know from private conversations to hold the
exact opposite opinion to the one being attributed to them.

What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.


But what I found worst was the fact that nobody seemed to be taking any
notice at all of the four women who raised diversity issues at the mic in
Orlando until I got up to the mic and mansplained the issue for you all.

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Pete Resnick]

On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie  wrote:
   

   I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
 

Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area.   Lucky me... :)
   


See the message I just posted. Yes, the additional repetitions make it 
take longer, but really it's not so hard to say, "Yep, that's already on 
my list of issues" and toss the repetitious message aside.


On 8/27/13 12:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:

On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
   

I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
we are discussing here.
 

IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is responsible
for how things are said.  The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever
-- would be responsible for the substance.


On 8/27/13 12:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:


That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant-
at-arms's.
   


Yeah, again, that's me. Also see my recent message.

That said, I do wish it didn't take intervention on my part. I wish 
people would realize they're being repetitive. I wish people would stop 
responding to the repetition. (Neither is going to change my opinion of 
the consensus.) But then again, I also wish I had a pony.


pr

--
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Ted Lemon]

On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie  wrote:
>   I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.

Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area.   Lucky me... :)

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[S Moonesamy]

At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is 
not listening.   Not trying to understand what the person who is 
speaking to you has said.   Not trying to figure out if what they 
said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a 
sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in 
contradicting your position.


Yes.

We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent 
spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our 
community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and 
simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways.


I'll add the message from Scott Brim below and comment.

At 10:20 27-08-2013, Scott Brim wrote:
IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is 
responsible for how things are said.  The shepherd -- or 
supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance.


The shepherd would have to request PR-action on the grounds that 
there has been a BCP violation.  That would cause other process 
issues.  The community will remain quiet and the shepherd will take the fall.


At 12:08 27-08-2013, John Leslie wrote:

   I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.


Me too.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy  

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[John Leslie]

Ted Lemon  wrote:
> 
> I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art
> that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been
> simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance,

   +1

   Alas, that statement applies to both posts which raise issues and
posts which refute issues.

> which, well intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it
> harder to evaluate consensus.

   I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.

   For better or worse, current RFCs in standards track have boilerplate
saying
" 
" This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
" (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community...

   Unless and until this boilerplate changes, IESG members have an
obligation to try to decide whether that statement is true.

   I'm _very_ glad I don't have that obligation!

--
John Leslie 

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Ted Lemon]

On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:
> IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is responsible for 
> how things are said.  The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would 
> be responsible for the substance. 

I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art that a 
lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been simple repeats 
of points previously made, with no additional substance, which, well 
intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it harder to evaluate 
consensus.   But sure, the responsible AD could also intervene.

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Melinda Shore]

On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
> rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
> we are discussing here.  

That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant-
at-arms's.

Melinda

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Scott Brim]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon  wrote:

> But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not
> listening.   Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to
> you has said.   Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully
> contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine
> if they might be correct in contradicting your position.
>
> We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis
> discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly
> ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own
> position in a variety of ways.
>
> I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness
> before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are
> discussing here.   The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed
> discussion points raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly
> harmful to discourse on the ietf mailing list.


IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is responsible for
how things are said.  The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would
be responsible for the substance.

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Ted Lemon]

FWIW, if we are going to go down that road, it would be worth noting that there 
are various kinds of rudeness that can occur on IETF mailing lists.   To my 
mind, the most harmful of these is not outright rudeness.   Outright rudeness 
is to be avoided, certainly.

But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not 
listening.   Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you 
has said.   Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts 
your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might 
be correct in contradicting your position.

We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis 
discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly 
ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own 
position in a variety of ways.

I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness 
before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing 
here.   The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed discussion points 
raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly harmful to discourse on 
the ietf mailing list.   This exchange between l.wood and Abdussalam Baryun 
pales in comparison.

Furthermore, I would also point out that criticism of someone's behavior is not 
rudeness, if that criticism is accurate.   I don't think the IETF should be a 
context in which people ought to feel safe in behaving badly, as long as they 
behave badly in ways that are subtle enough not to be considered impolite.  Nor 
should it be a context in which failure to behave according to some 
culturally-relative standard of politeness in itself invalidates an otherwise 
valid statement.

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I'm Š I was traveling and not having access to email Š

Regards,
Jordi






-Mensaje original-
De: Tim Chown 
Responder a: 
Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51
Para: ietf 
Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

>Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate
>behaviour on this list?
>
>Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years
>ago...
>
>Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of
>other posters, whether new or veteran.
>
>Tim



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

[Tim Chown]

Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour 
on this list?

Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago...

Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other 
posters, whether new or veteran.

Tim