Re: abandoning the rules of discourse
fpolacco@icenet.fi (Fabrizio Polacco) wrote on 23.10.97 in <344EF747.34B6E400@icenet.fi>:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > We recently had some conversation on rules of discourse for the
> > mailing lists. At that time, discussion by most developers was
> > strongly against them. Only myself and two other people spoke out
> > for them at all.
> >
> > I want to check for opinions one more time before abandoning them.
> > If we do that, disrespectful language will be allowed, and obscentity
> > will be allowed. Is this really what people want?
> >
>
> Disrespectful language and obscentity disqualify only those that use
> them. Ignoring them is the right thing to do, IMO.
IMO, it depends entirely on the situation. I've seen some "disrespectful
language and obscentity" that didn't detract at all from the respect I had
for the people who wrote them. Some of it was even directed at me.
Of course, the opposite has also happened. I don't think you can capture
this in a simple rule.
> I have noticed some interesting ideas in some messages, but their
> language convinced me that they were not worth of my attention.
There was an interesting example I just saw a few hours ago. On a mailing
list for an IETF working group (drums, to be specific), there's one guy
who seems to have a hard time writing flame-free mail. Some here will
surely know him - he did visit the Debian mailing lists some time ago (for
a flame session, of course), and one of his products is sitting in
experimental, IIRC. It's Dan Bernstein, the author of qmail. (Oh, btw, he
threatened to sue the wg chair if he would be thrown off the list ...)
Just today, the wg chair posted a message about how to handle flame-
infested groups to the group - I think I'll append that at the end. You
may note that he carefully avoids naming names, but it's impossible for
any member of the group not to associate it with Dan's recent posts
immediately.
Now, why do I bring this up? Because Dan actually quite often has
important things to say, even if he usually says them in a fairly
offensive way. I actually read what he writes, I just try not to comment
directly.
Oh, by the way, one of the most offensive German idioms is actually a
(usually mangled) quote from Goethe, from "Götz von Berlichingen". Food
for thought, or so I'd think ...
MfG Kai
The message referred to above:
> Here are some basic guidelines to help keep discussion productive:
>
> * Don't insult other people. Discussion should focus on technical
> issues, not people.
>
> * Don't insult other people's proposals. If you have to resort to
> insults, it makes your technical critique less effective and discourages
> constructive participation. Try assuming that the other person simply has
> a different valid perspective or hasn't had some experience which might
> change their mind.
>
> * Be courteous. Try assuming the best of other list participants and try
> to minimize the risk of hurting other people's feelings when creating
> messages.
>
> If you feel someone is violating these guidelines to an extent that is
> disruptive to the WG, you may use the traditional technique of "shunning."
> A mailing list participant is shunned by:
> (1) Assuming other list participants did not read posts by the offender
> (2) Never responding directly to posts by the offender
> (3) Never quoting text from posts by the offender
> (4) For extreme cases, you may privately encourage other list
> participants to shun the offender.
> The purpose of shunning is to minimize disruption to the WG without
> creating new administrative procedures or restricting list participation.
>
> Shunning is a voluntary grassroots action. The WG chair will not make a
> public post to this list encouraging shunning of a specific individual.
> The WG Chair will not deliberately ignore appropriate WG procedure
> questions raised by any list participant.
>
> - DRUMS WG Chair
Reply to: