Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree to write a draft to help the suggestion of having future draft of defining an Ad hominems and preventing it.  Comments below,

I am fully on board with efforts to make participation by relative newcomers more smooth and comfortable.  However, I feel the idea of creating an RFC merely to define "ad hominem" and suggest ways to prevent it is just a bit silly.  For example, I can imagine a citation like "Your comment is an ad hominem, as defined in RFCxxxx.  Please don't do that, or rephrase your question."  And I can imagine both veterans and newcomers alike thinking that's just a bizarre thing to do, or to have to do.

Perhaps I'm just amazed that we've reached a point where we feel we actually have to write down what things constitute professional conduct (or the opposite).

-MSK

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]