[db-wg] Ronald and code of conduct

Ronald

Throughout this and other discussions you constantly use unprofessional
language and personal insults and make unsubstantiated accusations.

You don't call a spade a spade, you call a spade a "privacy fetishist" and
an "extremist". Personally I don't care what you call me. But if you turn
one person away from this discussion because of what you say, that is bad
news for this community. I know that IS the case with this privacy
discussion.

Now you are using the classic double bluff tactic of accusing your
opponents of doing what you are doing as a deflection tactic.

If you feel I have been unprofessional in my approach to you then by all
means raise a code of conduct issue. I will happily defend my position.

Otherwise please try to conduct this discussion in a professional manner
without the personal insults and accusations.

denis

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, 05:56 Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg, <db-wg at ripe.net>
wrote:

> In message <CAKvLzuFA0y8mOzPiiy4tHBCRUNUBbQgJc-DD54E-S+0TW=
> StiA at mail.gmail.com>
> denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Many of your comments are insulting and unprofessional. Much of what
> you've
> >written below is utter nonsense.
>
> Since this is directed at me, very personally, I claim the right of reply.
>
> If we're going to talk about discourtesy and unprofessionalism, then by all
> means let's do that.
>
> Denis, you have been uncourteous, unprofessional, and dismissive of me and
> all of the several informal proposals that I have floated on this list from
> the beginning.  Not a single one of those proposals has ever received even
> any reasoned debate nor any fair hearing here, much less an actual show of
> hands.  Nontheless, I have noticed that each proposal that -you- have
> authored
> and/or that -you- have a personal interest in has somehow managed to always
> float to the top of the stack for the group's consideration.  Now why would
> that be, exactly?
>
> Where I come from "professionalism" involves a bit more than just being
> slavish, subserviant, and deferential towards those in positions of
> authority.
> It also entails the avoidance of even the apperance of a conflict of
> interest.
>
> Apparently, that particular aspect of professionalism has not yet migrated
> over to your side of the pond.  And thus we have a situation where the
> chaiman of a RIPE Working Group is also and simultaneously an active and
> vocal advocate for his own pet propoosals, even as he is dismissing others
> out of hand that don't appeal to his personal predilections and
> preferences.
>
> This is not the kind of even-handed "neutral referee" role that I
> personally
> would have hoped for or expected of a Working Group chair, and it does not
> comport with "professionalism" in any of the senses in which I understand
> that word.
>
> For my own part, I confess that I am blunt and direct in my style of making
> my points.  This is something that I am not at all prepared to apologize
> for.
> I call a spade a spade, and this alone rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
> But I have not and do not argue in bad faith, or in favor of any position
> or proposition which I do not fully believe in.  When I am direct, it is
> typically because I see the Right Answer as being both obvious and
> unavoidable.
>
> I am no longer surprised that persons I have argued against often wish to
> take issue not with the substance of my arguments, but with the manner of
> my presentation.  So be it.
>
> What I can say, and what I do say, by way of defense in the present
> context,
> is that I have no ulterior motive, no hidden agenda, that I have earnestly
> and with candor stated my true position, and that unlike you, denis, I have
> no immediately apparent conflict of interest when it comes to the ordering
> of, or the consideration of proposals pending before this Working Group.
>
>
> Regard,
> rfg
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20220620/2eec8edc/attachment.html>