Subject: Re: Today's transition for www.ietf.org

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:20:33 -0600

Hi everyone,

Please do try to keep the discourse professional.  It's well within your
rights and the list charter to discuss the website changes; expressing
dissatisfaction with the website and the process that led to is fine,
but abusing individuals is not acceptable.  We ask everyone to take
a moment to consider their choice of words before sending further
responses; try to keep to a civil discussion about the work and the
process, and not the people involved with the work or the process.  As
when writing standards, precise language matters!

Thanks,

Ben and Matt
Sergeants-at-arms

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:22:01 +0100

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:20:33AM -0600,
 Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> try to keep to a civil discussion about the work and the process,
> and not the people involved with the work or the process.

"The fact that ticket [www.ietf.org/rt #201081] (Old IETF links are
broken) was closed without fixing the problem is annoying and seems to
indicate a weakness in the process." Is it civil enough? (My first
version was more honest.)

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:13:53 -0600

> indicate a weakness in the process." Is it civil enough? (My first

Yes.  (Note that most sergeant-at-arms actions are unicast and not
cc'd to the list.  Sometimes they come delayed by around a day from
the triggering message.)

-Ben