Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Moratorium on Hari Discussion

Jonathan Thatcher wrote:

> Generally, it is the purpose of the reflector to assist the HSSG in the
> [...]

yes, i'm aware of that.

> Unlike the meetings, where there is a chair and a body of membership present
> to monitor the proceedings in real time, it is a forum that relies on the
> etiquette of the users to make sure that no discussion is "out of order" or
> "generally objectionable." To permit discussion which is "out of order" or
> "generally objectionable" is to risk having the right to use such a tool
> revoked. This would hamper the progress of the committee to a large degree.
> It also risks driving away skilled and talented people who have no desire to
> participate in an abusive environment.

on the other hand, it is just another form of electronic communication and no one
need feel compelled to read or reply.  participation in this is voluntary.  if IEEE
didn't host this forum, some other organization probably would.  i will agree it is
important that participants feel their comments will get a fair and objective review,
that behavior will be professional at all times, i recognize the importance of open
discussion to the standards development process.  but is a test for "professional
conduct" to be decided unilaterally?  it is certainly no surprise that IEEE will run
its web site anyway it likes.

for my part, vigorous debate doesn't bother me, no matter which way it will turn.
i choose what i will read, when and if i will respond, and can simply ignore the rest.

> If this were not sufficient, I have been reminded that to allow abusive
> language of any kind carries with it potential criminal implications to me,
> the company I work for, and the IEEE.

"any kind"?  though i'm not a lawyer, i doubt this.  nothing i've seen posted
here comes close to the kind of threat that is implied.

> [...] The work of doing 10 Gig Ethernet will be
> sufficiently difficult even under ideal conditions. We need to make the
> conditions as ideal as possible.

i doubt anyone would disagree with that.  but if someone were to impose
contraints that stifle discussion, what is accomplished?