ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: anti-harassment procedures

2014-02-24 13:43:23
On 25/02/2014 06:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 20:40 21-02-2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One difficulty is that what is "unwanted" is very sensitive
to cultural and linguistic subtleties. Also, if (for example) I
were to repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's
IETF work, or even syntax errors in their English, where is the
line between legitimate discussion and review and objectionable
harassment?

I am responding to the above as it is one of the difficulties
encountered in an interaction with another person.

If you repeatedly point out substantive errors in somebody's work, that
person might perceive that as victimization.  I'd say try and keep it
impersonal as far as possible.  It is better to avoid point out too many
syntax errors if you are not sure whether the person uses English as a
first language.

Of course. My point was that it's hard to define a precise boundary between
legitimate critical discussion and mild harassment, and we need to be sensitive
to that in the text. It's more important to have a process that deals
effectively with *serious* and highly unpleasant behaviours that we clearly
should not tolerate.

     Brian


I'll separate legitimate discussion and review.  In the review you can
easily point out the substantive errors or syntax errors.  I am not sure
how to explain how the discussion can be a problem.  I would leave that
to experience.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy