Subject: Re: [Diversity] draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-01 - intimidation or personal attack

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 11:54:59 +0200

On 9/1/13, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is the following text in draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-01:
>
>    "We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument rather than through
>     intimidation or personal attack."
>
> How do I disagree with what you said without it being viewed as
> intimidation or a personal attack?  To say it differently, it is
> possible for the other person to consider what I wrote as intimidating.

I only want participants to disagree with the point of view, not to
disagree with the persons. We SHOULD not make participants as subjects
into IETF. Our subjects SHOULD be drafts, work, RFCs, technical
issues, comments, statements, etc.

>
> I'll list a few scenarios:
>
>    An Area Director says X.  Some people will likely be intimidated and
> will
>    not say anything to contradict the Area Director.  It can be said that
> the
>    Area Director is intimidating.

That usually happens in IETF.

>
>    A well-known IETF participant says X.  Some people will likely be
> intimidated
>    or not be comfortable to disagree with that participant.

Thoes some people SHOULD disagree with the idea/view not disagree with
the person, and a good reason of disagree makes life easier to
understand and avoid attack and make our work with more quality.

>
>    An unknown IETF participant says X.  A lot of people disagree with the
>    participant.  The participant will likely be intimidated.

This usually happens in IETF because it is not diversified enough or
it has no diversity-group that discusses such issues. I recommended a
WG in General Area, which this draft MAY propose.

>
> Let's say I write to you and say:
>
>    Your request come from a clear lack of understanding of the IETF
>    or how it works.

I got that message from some Participants from North America region
(majority participants region), which I think they think that IETF
culture is the North America Culture just because their majority.
However, the above statement of lack-understanding SHOULD NOT be used
in IETF, it is an ATTACK no doubt but still the IETF management allow
this behavior.
>
> Is that a personal attack?

Yes indeed, if you post it privately it will be an advise, but if you
do it in public then there is no doubt it is a personal ATTACK.

I will add also, that participants that ask others to reduce the
volume of WORK, or Messages, also are ATTACKing while doing that in
public. I got a message from a co-chair warning me in public that my
messages are with high volume while he forgotten that the messages are
discussing work and that he SHOULD point out where a message was with
no value, or who in IETF can evaluate value of messages.

I agree with you that there is no definition to ATTACK or personal
attack, but I hope you can define it in your draft, because I think
this message gives some details of what is my opinion of such
definition.

Please note that this draft is the first draft/work in the diversity
issues, and that the design team assigned SHOULD guide/work on
something similar as Moonesamy.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 07:25:06 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>WG in General Area, which this draft MAY propose.

This draft is not about the General Area.  I don't think that a 
Working Group can be proposed in it.

By the way, I could have responded to the above comment with:

   Your recommendation comes from a lack of understanding of how the 
IETF works.

>do it in public then there is no doubt it is a personal ATTACK.

There was a comment about discomfort.  A private reply might not be 
viewed as advice and it can cause discomfort.

>no value, or who in IETF can evaluate value of messages.

There is a difference between the volume of work and the amount of 
messages.  The amount of messages can create more work for the other 
subscribers who have to read the messages.

A Working Group Chair can send a public message about the high amount 
of messages.  The Working Group Chair can evaluate the arguments 
being made.  Please note that arguments are not similar to: Why are 
you doing X?

A Working Group Chair can set restrictions on what is being discussed.

>this message gives some details of what is my opinion of such

Thanks for providing an opinion.  I would not try to define "attack" 
or "personal attack".  My preference is to see a sincere effort on both sides.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:38:24 -0700

On 8/31/2013 9:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:

>  will not say anything to contradict the Area Director.  It can be
> said that the Area Director is intimidating.
>
> intimidated or not be comfortable to disagree with that participant.
>
> An unknown IETF participant says X.  A lot of people disagree with
> the participant.  The participant will likely be intimidated.

So the first two examples are explicit or implicit 'speaking from 
authority'.  The intimidation is to create perceived level of authority, 
against which the other person might not want to /seem/ to be challenging.

The third example is a perception of 'being ganged up on'.

What is especially interesting about these examples is that they are 
typically passive, in the sense that the actors who are responding are 
not doing anything that is inherently intimidating.

> Your request come from a clear lack of understanding of the IETF or
> how it works.
>

Definitely.

Perhaps:

    Attack is any direct criticism of a person's competence, motives or 
style.  An attack also might describe some styles of criticism of an 
idea.  "That's a stupid idea" is, of course, an attack.  "That idea has 
significant deficiencies," is not, but then it requires listing the 
specific deficiencies.  (It could even be argued that saying there are 
deficiencies, without then listing them, essentially turns the comment 
into an attack, since it provides no basis for constructive exchange.

I suggest separating "attack" discussion from "intimidation" discussion, 
since their differences are significant and both concerns are extremely 
important to this paper.  (Attack can be a form of intimidation, of 
course, but there are many forms of intimidation that do not appear to 
be an attack, per se.

Perhaps:

     Intimidation is the use of techniques for undermining the 
legitimacy of ideas or speakers, rather than engaging constructively in 
debate about the ideas:

      Manipulation:  Skillful and efficient deceit using artful, unfair
                     or unobtrusive devices and contrivances in a secret
                     manner in order to control others.

      Intimidation:  The use of fear or coercion to force submission to
                     another’s will.

      Domination:    To influence the actions and conduct of another to
                     be first in power, influence or rank.

      Practitioners attempt to project an attractive and irresistible
      image of superior natural and/or supernatural skills, abilities
      and accomplishments.[1]

I suggest adding something like the above language to the document, 
because it gives the community a baseline reference for the behaviors 
that are problematic; and by having labels for them, it makes explicit 
why and how the behaviors are problematic.

Another online reference to consider is [2].

d/

[1] http://www.angelfire.com/in/HisName/page5.html

[2] http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message496183/pg1

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 16:16:01 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 09:38 01-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>What is especially interesting about these 
>examples is that they are typically passive, in 
>the sense that the actors who are responding are 

Yes.  This takes the discussion into "failure to 
act".  If I was a WG Chair I would have to say 
something in the case of the unknown IETF 
participant.  As an individual I can pretend not 
to see it.  Here's a list of individuals commenting on a topic:

  Patrik Fältström
  Heasley
  Andy Bierman
  Ole Jacobsen
  Adrian Farrel
  Warren Kumari
  Scott Brim
  Roger Jørgensen
  Loa Andersson

Nobody did anything intimidating 
individually.  There can be a perception of 
'being ganged up on'.  To be clear, none of these 
individuals did anything inappropriate.

>Perhaps:
>
>    Attack is any direct criticism of a person's 
> competence, motives or style.  An attack also 
> might describe some styles of criticism of an 
> idea.  "That's a stupid idea" is, of course, an 
> attack.  "That idea has significant 
> deficiencies," is not, but then it requires 
> listing the specific deficiencies.  (It could 
> even be argued that saying there are 
> deficiencies, without then listing them, 
> essentially turns the comment into an attack, 
> since it provides no basis for constructive exchange.

It is not clear whether "that idea has 
significant deficiencies" with further 
explanation is an attack or not.  It's not a 
useful comment as there isn't any explanation about the deficiencies.

This draft will not survive a Last Call it 
attempts to turn the IETF into a politically 
correct organization. :-)  People will be wary of 
Appendix B (see the comment from Adrian Farrel).

>I suggest separating "attack" discussion from 
>"intimidation" discussion, since their 
>differences are significant and both concerns 
>are extremely important to this paper.  (Attack 
>can be a form of intimidation, of course, but 
>there are many forms of intimidation that do not 
>appear to be an attack, per se.

I'll discuss the rest of your message in a 
separate message.  I don't have a preference 
about the separation at the moment.  I would like 
to see more input on the two topics.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 23:01:05 -0500

>> the participant.  The participant will likely be intimidated.

I read past here in the thread, but am responding to Dave's post because he
used(*) the phrase "speaking from authority" to describe the case of an
area director saying something that's treated with deference.

If anyone is tempted to think "that's wrong, but the area director has
spoken", please resist that temptation!

One does not have to look further than the bi-weekly formal IESG telechat
agendas for examples of area directors being schooled on a variety of
topics, and some of those examples are from my own education.

We really can't function as an IETF worthy of the Internet unless everyone
gives their best contribution while listening to what other people are
contributing. If we short-circuit discusion when people hesitate to make
technical contributions because of another contributor's position, that
Will Not End Well.

If I get something right, great. if not, please feel free to disagree
with me, of course, or anyone else :-)

Starting in 3 ... 2 ... :-)

Spencer, speaking as an individual

(*) Dave's characterization helpfully crystallized the point I hoped to
explain, and responding to his post had the additional advantage that no
one could imagine Dave would be intimidated by me :-) ...

> typically passive, in the sense that the actors who are responding are not
> doing anything that is inherently intimidating.
>
>
> style.  An attack also might describe some styles of criticism of an idea.
>  "That's a stupid idea" is, of course, an attack.  "That idea has
> deficiencies, without then listing them, essentially turns the comment into
> an attack, since it provides no basis for constructive exchange.
>
>
>
> important to this paper.  (Attack can be a form of intimidation, of course,
> but there are many forms of intimidation that do not appear to be an
> attack, per se.
>
>
> Perhaps:
>
>     Intimidation is the use of techniques for undermining the legitimacy
> of ideas or speakers, rather than engaging constructively in debate about
> the ideas:
>
> because it gives the community a baseline reference for the behaviors that
> are problematic; and by having labels for them, it makes explicit why and
> how the behaviors are problematic.
>
> [1] http://www.angelfire.com/in/**HisName/page5.html<http://www.angelfire.com/in/HisName/page5.html>
>
> [2] http://www.godlikeproductions.**com/forum1/message496183/pg1<http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message496183/pg1>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> ______________________________**_________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/diversity<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:08:11 -0700

On 9/1/2013 4:16 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> If I was a WG Chair I would have to say something in the case of the
> unknown IETF participant.

A WG Chair has an obligation to ensure good wg process.  I do not 
understand why anyone thinks that means the chair or an author have to 
respond to a misguided or otherwise useless posting.

The usual argument that's made, for responding, is to counter-act 
possible misunderstanding by others.  My usual response to that is to 
wait until it happens.

So again, why is the chair obligated to respond?

d/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:24:07 +0200

I agree with Dave, IMHO, the Chair is oblicated to respond on the list
to listed direct requests to him/her (or off-line if able to). The
Chair is also oblicated to read all messages in the WG list. The Chair
should not allow personal attacks in WG meetings and on the WG list.

AB

On 9/2/13, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 23:13:39 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 21:08 01-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>understand why anyone thinks that means the chair or an author have 
>to respond to a misguided or otherwise useless posting.
>
>possible misunderstanding by others.  My usual response to that is 
>to wait until it happens.
>

The decision to respond is a matter of individual opinion, i.e. 
someone else may take a different decision.  I have been that unknown 
participant.  I have my share of misguided or otherwise useless 
postings. :-)  I have been through the same path as Eduardo and 
Allison.  It takes courage to say what Eduardo and Allison said.  The 
rest of the IETF will not appreciate that.  The message I posted a 
few weeks ago was about the kindness of strangers.  The rest of the 
IETF did not notice that.

As a reminder the scenario was:

In my personal opinion bullying is not okay.  There can be a 
perception of bullying.  That perception might not be there if there 
wasn't the failure to act.  Waiting for it to happens means that 
there will have to be a formal complaint and someone has to figure 
out what to do about the complaint.  It can also mean that the people 
who are only reading the messages will get a sense that bullying is 
okay in the IETF if they did not see anything done about it.

The Chair is not obligated to respond.  The author is not obligated 
to respond.  I'll take the above into consideration to determine 
whether to respond or not.  It can actually be less work overall.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:03:42 +0200

>    participant.  The participant will likely be intimidated.

your senario is missing REASON of disagree

I want to clarify an important issue in my intimidated experience. I
get sad when I see disagreement with no logic-reason, therefore, the
senario SHOULD be:

An unknown IETF participant says X.  A lot of known participants
disagree with X.  The participant X will likely be intimidated because
he got no logic-reason to sense the way most participant think or make
group-logic.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 02:37:47 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 09:38 01-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I suggest separating "attack" discussion from "intimidation" 
>discussion, since their differences are significant and both 
>concerns are extremely important to this paper.  (Attack can be a 
>form of intimidation, of course, but there are many forms of 
>intimidation that do not appear to be an attack, per se.
>
>
>Perhaps:
>
> legitimacy of ideas or speakers, rather than engaging 
> constructively in debate about the ideas:
>
>                     another's will.
>because it gives the community a baseline reference for the 
>behaviors that are problematic; and by having labels for them, it 
>makes explicit why and how the behaviors are problematic.

The above would generate controversy on the Last Call.  It seems like 
the underlying concern though.  The draft mentions 
"intimidation".  It's not clear what would constitute 
intimidation.  If I was shouting at you it could be viewed as 
intimidating.  I gather that everyone understands that shouting at a 
woman would cause problems.  The person who is new to the IETF might 
be intimated if somebody shouts at him/her.

What would be intimidating in written communication?  That's not 
clear.  An aggressive response to a polite message might be seen as 
intimidating.  A sarcastic response to a polite message might be seen 
as intimidating.

There is likely an intersection between manipulation, domination, and 
intimidation.  I would look at it like this: if another person tells 
me that my message is intimidating I would avoid having such an 
exchange again.  If I have a history of such behavior there would be 
a warning at some point and action would be taken after that.

Should there be a baseline reference for behaviors that are 
problematic?  My opinion is that the baseline is not what is written 
in the draft; it's up to each and everyone who believes that 
something is not good to stand up.  In other words, it's the 
community that will be setting the reference.  There's not much that 
can be done if the community does nothing.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 08:29:19 -0700

On 9/5/2013 2:37 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The above would generate controversy on the Last Call.

Anything that goes beyond very simple, generic terms is likely to 
generate controversy here.  For that matter, generic terms often 
generate it.  On the other hand, for the document to be of practical 
use, it needs to contain behavioral substance.

> It seems like
> the underlying concern though.  The draft mentions "intimidation".  It's
> not clear what would constitute intimidation.  If I was shouting at you
> it could be viewed as intimidating.  I gather that everyone understands
> that shouting at a woman would cause problems.

For human behavior, context is essential. Shouting is not automatically 
intimidating, but yes, the prima facie assumption is that it crosses the 
line into unacceptable.

One of the real challenges is distinguishing context of the direct 
participants, versus context of the group.  You and I might have a 
relationship in which shouting is entirely acceptable.  But for us to 
indulge in that within an IETF group, it is likely to be misinterpreted 
or, at least, to cause /others/ to be intimidated.

> The person who is new to
> the IETF might be intimated if somebody shouts at him/her.

Yes, but not just /at/.  Also /around/ them.

> problematic?  My opinion is that the baseline is not what is written in
> the draft; it's up to each and everyone who believes that something is
> not good to stand up.

Sorry, no.  That is exactly the core problem in the IETF:  We lay the 
responsibility for defining specifics to each participant.

Imagine applying that model to the standards we write: each host should 
decide what it considers correct.  We call this non-interoperable for 
our protocols.  Guess what?  It's also non-interoperable for a diverse 
group having participants with many different personalities and from 
many different cultures.

If the current round of effort is to have meaningful utility, it needs 
to define specifics.  Not for rigid political correctness, but to 
establish a real and unambiguous baseline for professional conduct.

> In other words, it's the community that will be
> setting the reference.

"The community" is setting nothing, if it specifies nothing.

>  There's not much that can be done if the
> community does nothing.

Exactly.

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:20:03 -0700

Hi Dave,
>use, it needs to contain behavioral substance.

I'll comment below.

>For human behavior, context is essential. Shouting is not 
>automatically intimidating, but yes, the prima facie assumption is 
>that it crosses the line into unacceptable.
>
>relationship in which shouting is entirely acceptable.  But for us 
>to indulge in that within an IETF group, it is likely to be 
>misinterpreted or, at least, to cause /others/ to be intimidated.

Yes.

>Yes, but not just /at/.  Also /around/ them.

Yes.

>Sorry, no.  That is exactly the core problem in the IETF:  We lay 
>the responsibility for defining specifics to each participant.

This is a good point.

>Imagine applying that model to the standards we write: each host 
>should decide what it considers correct.  We call this 
>non-interoperable for our protocols.  Guess what?  It's also 
>non-interoperable for a diverse group having participants with many 
>different personalities and from many different cultures.

Yes.

>If the current round of effort is to have meaningful utility, it 
>needs to define specifics.  Not for rigid political correctness, but 
>to establish a real and unambiguous baseline for professional conduct.

Here's what I suggest.  In 2002 there was a presentation called "Miss 
Manners meets the IETF" ( 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/index.html ).  I 
can add an informative reference to that presentation.  Would the 
information in the presentation be of practical use?

I'll also suggest raising the point about "laying responsibility on 
the individual" during the Last Call (if this draft gets there).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:19:43 -0700

On 9/5/2013 10:20 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/index.html ).  I can
> add an informative reference to that presentation.  Would the

Radia's presentation was quite good, I thought.  You certainly should 
cite it.

On the other hand, if we want to cite it for actual utility:

      I'll also note that at the next IETF meeting, there was a BOF 
which contained some of the most aggressive and offensive intimidation 
efforts I've ever seen (at the IETF.)

The thing that was missing then and that I eagerly hope might be 
changing, is the community resolve to demand better behavior and to 
challenge it directly and immediately when we don't get it.

In that regard, though I naturally think Pete over-reacted to my own 
recent, public sarcasm, I'd frankly rather have that happen than have 
continued under-reaction (to the level of indulgence) of offensive 
behavior...

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:38:52 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 11:19 05-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Radia's presentation was quite good, I thought.  You certainly should cite it.

I'll do that in the next revision of the draft.

> which contained some of the most aggressive and offensive 
> intimidation efforts I've ever seen (at the IETF.)

See comment below.

Yes.

>recent, public sarcasm, I'd frankly rather have that happen than 
>have continued under-reaction (to the level of indulgence) of 
>offensive behavior...

I hope that this won't come out there wrong way.  There is a good 
side to it; if there isn't any reaction other people will indulge in 
offensive behavior.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:42:19 -0400

>> challenge it directly and immediately when we don't get it.

This is really scary.  I don't like where this could go and I hope 
other key IETF veterans could see what I am talking about and reject 
this philosophy. I don't wish to elaborate it but its going to be used 
to make it more difficult to have due diligent engineering discussions 
and problem resolutions. I already feel intimidated about all this. I 
should probably ignore it.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:22:21 +0200

On 9/5/13, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> intimidating.

I don't know what you mean by shouting, this vocabulary is used in
IETF as if we are cowboys, no we are not, I never shout, I make my
strong statements because I need to see who supports and who
disagrees, me being strong or trying to be strong to see if the others
have evidence does not mean I am shouting.

>  I gather that everyone understands that shouting at a
> woman would cause problems.

No one can shout at a man or women we are all working together for the
IETF, we are in it for same purpose. If I disagree with a woman
related to a draft, telling her that I disagree with the draft
strongly, and showing my reasons, that is not shouting, that is
showing my opinion, and helps her know what I am thinking (I may be
wrong).

> The person who is new to the IETF might

I was new, and some times I feel still new because I am remote
participant, however, only puting me as new make me intimidated
because we should be treated equally and fairly in IETF,all new or
old, men or women, experts or students, etc.Few/Some people still
cannot think that thoes are equal in IETF in their rights.
> intimidating.  A sarcastic response to a polite message might be seen

It depends always on the subject, if the subject is an I-D, we should
be patient, but if the subject is a person then we should not allow
such behavior,
> There's not much that

The community usually do nothing when management do nothing, but the
community in IETF appoints (done somthing) management members, so that
management does something related to such behavior.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:28:42 +0200

> should probably ignore it.

Better behavior of participants in the community means discussing
engineering not discussing personal issues, better behavior is asking
questions related to drafts/procedures not related to persons. Let us
make the discussions focus on subjects that make value to IETF. The
community should understand not to change subjects of discussion to
personal issues, the community can change subjects to engineering
issues or procedural issues.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:59:26 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>have evidence does not mean I am shouting.

The meaning of a "shout" is to utter in a loud voice.  I was 
discussing about spoken and not written conversation.  I was not 
referring to you or any other person in the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:08:54 +0200

In MANET WG, I get replies of I am shouting, while I never spoke to
any MANET WG participant so far. Therefore, the word is informal and
may be defined diffrently into IETF, similar to word attack which is
not defined as some advise. I know that you did not discuss about
written but as you discuss the issue related to IETF community we need
to know how the community defines *shouting*, furthermore, I
understood that the most of the community have no much diffrences
between spoken or written, they reply in written *you say*, *that
said*, but they are writting not speaking, so informally communication
use that as no difference between *speak* and *write*.

AB

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 06:48:35 -0300

Abdussalam,

    Let rephrase your comment to see if I understand:

"In mailing lists discussions like MANET WG, I've got replies saying
that of I am shouting even when I am not and I am not pretending to be
rude."

    Is it that?

    If so, it depends on the use of the language. As non-english native
speakers we have the tendency of doing literal translations and we lack
of idioms/terms. Sometimes we could appear to be rude even when we are
not. Also, because writting language may lack of context and tone and
sometimes we find hard to communicate properly, petitions may be seen as
"orders" or that you are condescending (at least that is what I have
seen or experienced).

    I do not have text to offer to SM related to this but it falls in
what many have said, human communication is an effort from the sender
and the receiver. We as non-english native speakers need to try harder
to communicate better and polite, and english speaker need to make an
effort to understand us.

Cheers
as

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:46:18 +0200

Hi Arturo,

My reply answers/comments below,

> that of I am shouting even when I am not and I am not pretending to be

Yes, and in other list they mention the tone, which I am not sure how
they find that tone,
>
>     If so, it depends on the use of the language.

Yes it always depends on the use of language, but I am using it in my
way informally not in their way. Therefore, they should not understand
from my written tone, they should not sense tone from words.

> As non-english native
> of idioms/terms.

I agree, I am trying to improve and know how majority sense the tone,

> Sometimes we could appear to be rude even when we are
> not.

I think I get that reaction from some as reply from my postings, but
need to work with one mentoring officer on this issue.

> Also, because writting language may lack of context and tone and

I think if that is beleived by all then we will get reduce of input
from IETF community that don't speak/write English perfectly.
> and the receiver.

mentoring is good for both sides to help native speaker and non-native
speaker to communicate better, because we all work together for IETF.

> We as non-english native speakers need to try harder

I agree, and I do try to avoid any understandning that some respond is
rude, but sometimes a message is clear that it is rude then I can
complain, however, due to unclear context we should not think
negatively we should be positive in both sides that the other side is
not attacking, just trying to get support from community to such idea
or opinion.

AB