Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:52:10 -0500

Hi Mike,

I'd like to follow up on that more -- my recollection is that I was
explicitly not attempting to advocate a particular position, and was rather
trying to foster effective communication in a stressful environment that
was prone to a breakdown of communication.  I'd like to better understand
how and why I failed to do so, so that I can do better in the future.

My default assumption would be that it's best to have that follow-up
offlist, but I am not going to attempt to impose my preference on you.

Thanks,

Ben

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 09:15:00PM -0400, Michael wrote:
> Ben - specifically in the discussion that prompted Alissa to threaten to PR me.
> 
> Mikr
> 
> Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> 
> From: Adam Roach
> To: Michael StJohns, [email-masked]
> Sent: August 31, 2019 at 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period
> 
> On 8/31/19 4:42 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Adam - Hyperbole at this point is not helpful. Specifically "no > supervision" does not come even close to what we've been asking... I'm sorry if that came across as hyperbole. I'm honestly trying to probe at what the community thinks RFC 3005 provides for. If there's some legitimate authority granted (by what language?) to someone (whom?) to provide such shepherding, I'm curious about what people think that looks like. The language that Bob cites, on its face, implies that it does not exist. I was simply trying to clarify that such was the point he was making. The rest of your points are reasonable, and as long as no one else is objecting to the possibility of having this conversation on IETF territory [1] -- rather than a venue hosted by the RFC Editor -- then I'm happy to drop attempts to redirect the conversation. We've heard jurisdictional complaints in the past, and I'm simply trying to avoid them this time around. I have one questio
> n for you: > The SAA should not participate in a conversation that it expects to > have oversight on. Listening is fine, advocacy for one side or > another is pretty much disqualifying in acting as the SAA for that > topic as SAA decisions could be seen to be tainted by bias. I understand the principle you're laying out. Your phrasing implies that you've seen instances of this happening, which I would find out of character for either Matthew or Benjamin. Have you seen this happening? Or are you just trying to ward off future issues? /a ____ [1] Its impacts on the IRTF and ISE notwithstanding

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:11:55 -0400

Hi Ben - inline

> how and why I failed to do so, so that I can do better in the future.

There were a number messages that were of concern to me,

(private to me)  6/28 9:44PM Re: RSE Independence -

(public) 7/1 6:43PM  Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

(public) 8/1 8:05PM Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work

While none of these were completely over the line into advocacy, they 
were jarring.   E.g. "How dare he tell me not to talk and then asks a 
question on the same topic" type jarring.   I think if you're acting as 
the SAA on a topic, you need to limit your interactions to that.  I 
understand you've been placed in a difficult spot in that you're still 
an SAA long after you joined the IESG, but you have to serve all your 
masters as best you can.

I came up with a number of do's and don'ts for the SAA during this 
process.  I may eventually write and ID, but here's what I had by the 
end of this.

1) Do:  Avoid acting as an SAA on a topic in which you might have even 
the smallest perception of conflict of interest; err on the recusal side.

2) Don't: Condemn in public without first trying to de-escalate an issue 
in private.

3) Do: Take people at their word.  Pay attention to what the community says.

4) Don't: Act on your own initiative.  Wait for a complaint to be made 
and act on it.  Complaints need to be public.  In other words, being 
outraged on the behalf of someone who isn't actually bothered by a 
comment directed at them does nothing but reduce the authority of the 
SAA.  In other words, don't substitute your opinion(s) for community 
consensus.

5) Don't: Confuse "unprofessional language" with "telling truth to 
power".  In other words, if the comment you have a concern with is 
directed to one or more of the leadership, consider first:  Is it true 
or is there a reasonable interpretation of the facts which could make it 
true?   Does the comment implicate behavior of the leadership that may 
be counter to their duty to the community? Does the comment seek 
information that has not been forthcoming? Does the comment attribute 
behavior to the leadership collectively or individually that is 
supported by the public facts?  Could the leadership resolve the comment 
by being forthcoming with the facts as they know them?  Have they 
declined to do so?   To be more blunt:   Lying, being disingenuous, 
deflecting, distracting, ignoring are unprofessional; calling out lying, 
disingenuousness, deflection, distraction, and ignoring when there is 
substantial indication of one of these is not only not unprofessional, 
but required in a consensus based community for the community to 
continue to operate.

6) Don't: Engage in an argument with the originator of the comment.  If 
they've been warned AND you have community (and not just I*) support, PR 
them as appropriate.

7) Do:  Be fair and impartial.  If both sides of a discussion have 
stepped over the line, use exactly the same process with each of them to 
resolve the issue.

8) Related to 1:  Don't be a member of the I* and the SAA simultaneously.

9) Don't: Act as the mailing list policy police.  If consensus has 
arisen that it's time to take the discussion elsewhere, or that a topic 
is off-topic for a list and that's abused time and again by one or two 
people then feel free to make a private comment to them to move.

> offlist, but I am not going to attempt to impose my preference on you.

If you send me a public message, you're mostly going to get a public 
response.

Later, Mike

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:08:03 -0400

> SAA.  In other words, don't substitute your opinion(s) for community 

I might take slight exception to that one.   If someone on the list is 
clearly behaving inappropriately (e.g. engaging in personal attacks) 
it's an offense to the entire IETF even if the specific target of those 
attacks doesn't complain about them.

At the same time, I emphatically object to "tone policing" by the SAA or 
other IETF leadership as being both arbitrary and counterproductive to 
IETF's purpose, and consider it an abuse of power when it happens.

> power". 

Certainly agree, but "unprofessional language" is a lousy standard 
anyway.   It's so vague that it can mean whatever those in power want it 
to mean, and that objection can and has been used to suppress valuable 
technical input.    There are too many things associated with the word 
"professional" that aren't appropriate for IETF - including the 
"professional" convention that you don't object to your higher-ups' 
technical decisions.   Really, we need to stop using the p-word.

But I certainly agree that the community leadership should not enjoy 
immunity from criticism for their IETF decisions.

> To be more blunt:   Lying, being disingenuous, deflecting, 
> distracting, ignoring are unprofessional;

Agree that these should be discouraged, because they're disruptive to 
IETF's purpose.

> calling out lying, disingenuousness, deflection, distraction, and 
> ignoring when there is substantial indication of one of these is not 
> only not unprofessional, but required in a consensus based community 
> for the community to continue to operate. 
Sort of agree.   I think we need to be very careful about what personal 
criticism we consider acceptable in IETF.   I don't think it's wrong to 
"call out" leadership when they do these things, but I also realize that 
it's easy for a person to completely misinterpret someone else's 
actions.   In general I think we need to strongly discourage personal 
criticism in IETF, but the actions of leadership (at whatever level) are 
necessarily subject to more public scrutiny than those of ordinary 
participants.

> arisen that it's time to take the discussion elsewhere, or that a 
> topic is off-topic for a list and that's abused time and again by one 
> or two people then feel free to make a private comment to them to move.

This is not the SAA's job at all.   If the SAA wants to make a comment 
while acting as an ordinary participant (with the "SAA hat" off), he or 
she should be clear about this.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:19:41 -0800

> IETF's purpose, and consider it an abuse of power when it happens.

I don't agree with this, as you might have guessed.  The term
"tone policing" has been used throughout these discussions in
a manner inconsistent with the intent of its creators at Geek
Feminism.  The problem that they were trying to address is that
people who've been on the receiving end of bullying, harassment,
and so on are often told that they're being emotional when they
talk about it, and can be dismissed on that basis.  It was
emphatically not intended to protect bullies, harassers, and so
on, and I don't think it's appropriate to use it to lift
harsh language in IETF discussions above criticism.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

Software longa, hardware brevis

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:57:03 -0400

On 9/2/19 5:19 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> Feminism.

I'm not aware of that definition, and don't recognize the right of a 
creator of a term (even if they did create it) to dictate use of that 
term, particularly when such term overrides the simple and obvious 
English meanings of the words used.

To be clear, by "tone policing" I simply mean policing people's speech 
because of their (perceived) "tone", rather than substance.   Such 
policing is quite often a distraction at best, and sometimes 
deliberately an attempt to distract away from their input.

>   The problem that they were trying to address is that
> talk about it, and can be dismissed on that basis.

That's interesting.   That's not quite what I was talking about, but 
I've certainly been "tone policed" by that definition even in IETF.

But again let me try to be clear:

It's wrong to dismiss someone's input because of their "tone". It 
doesn't matter why they have that "tone".   It could have been because 
of current or past abuse, or simply because they're frustrated.    Or 
both.   Sometimes the stakes of IETF discussions are high, and sometimes 
that leads to frustration.

Ignore the tone as much as possible, concentrate on the substance.   To 
insist on doing otherwise is an insult to the speaker.

> It was

"harsh" is again hopelessly vague.

I'm really tired of people using such excuses to shut down substantive 
discussion.    It is too often either an inappropriate form of political 
manipulation or simply yet another form of abuse.

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 19:02:35 -0400

--On Monday, September 2, 2019 17:08 -0400 Keith Moore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 4) Don't: Act on your own initiative.  Wait for a complaint
>> to be made  and act on it.  Complaints need to be public. 
>> In other words, being  outraged on the behalf of someone who
>> isn't actually bothered by a  comment directed at them does
>> nothing but reduce the authority of the  SAA.  In other
>> words, don't substitute your opinion(s) for community 
>> consensus.
> 
> I might take slight exception to that one.   If someone on
> the list is clearly behaving inappropriately (e.g. engaging in
> personal attacks) it's an offense to the entire IETF even if
> the specific target of those attacks doesn't complain about
> them.

Absolutely.  However, personal attacks and similar things are,
IMO, better handled via the ombudsteam who have specific
training, tools to deal with such problems that are, IMO, much
more likely to be effective in educating and sorting out the
issues --thereby protecting the entire IETF-- than the tools
available to the SAAs.   So, if that type of problem arises, not
only would I suggest that people approach the ombudsteam, but I
would suggest the SAAs do so as well: it would be completely
appropriate for them to go to the ombudsteam and say "this
person is engaging in personal attacks, harassing behavior, and
other bad acts that are within your purview, please do your
thing.

> At the same time, I emphatically object to "tone policing" by
> the SAA or other IETF leadership as being both arbitrary and
> counterproductive to IETF's purpose, and consider it an abuse
> of power when it happens.

Here I mostly agree with Melinda.  That particular term has
taken on special meanings (whether you are familiar with them or
accept them or not) and is as much of a problem as the behavior
to which you are objecting.   If I were to comment on one of
your suggestions by calling you are jerk (which, for the record,
I don't think you are and wouldn't do), that is a problem
because it is abusive behavior and a personal attack, regardless
of what anyone thinks of my "tone" (whatever that means).   If I
were to describe a particular proposal as the stupidest idea I
have ever heard, I hope someone would privately explain to me
why that sort of terminology and classification doesn't help
move discussions forward and would do so even if I carefully
avoided any explicit reflection on the intrinsic intelligence of
the person who proposed it.  I don't think that is about "tone".
YMMD, but I don't think that trying to move in the direction of
categories and categories and treating behavior as acceptable or
not depending on how the categories are defined helps any of us.

Finally, I do believe that, when someone accepts a leadership
position, they should understand, not only that transparency and
accountability go with the job, but that their actions may be
scrutinized more carefully and more often than typical IETF
participants.  That doesn't mean that they should be treated as
if they volunteered to be abused, but criticism of leadership
decisions is not, a priori, an attack and, as you suggested
elsewhere, we should be extremely cautious that our evolving
mechanisms to promote a community that operates with a higher
degree of respect for each other do not become mechanisms for
suppressing criticism or dissenting opinions.

best,
    john

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:23:30 +0900

> 2) Don't: Condemn in public without first trying to de-escalate an issue 

That's a bad idea, because wrong behaviors of SAAs in private,
having chilling effects on most victims, won't be noticed by
the public.

There may already be many such victims.

So, SAAs, if any, must always behave publicly, only when
it is worth doing so.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:41:18 +1000

I'm extremely reluctant to wade in here, but nevertheless here I am.

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 7:57 am, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It's wrong to dismiss someone's input because of their "tone". It doesn't matter why they have that "tone".   It could have been because of current or past abuse, or simply because they're frustrated.    Or both.   Sometimes the stakes of IETF discussions are high, and sometimes that leads to frustration.

Absolutely agreed.

> Ignore the tone as much as possible, concentrate on the substance.  

Absolutely not agreed, for reasons that have been discussed at length. Ignoring bad behaviour is permission to continue it, and changes the culture of the IETF to exclude valuable contributors. It also makes this a toxic environment. 

> To insist on doing otherwise is an insult to the speaker.

That's such an interesting assertion. Why is challenging people to behave better an insult?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 19:52:23 -0400

> Absolutely not agreed, for reasons that have been discussed at length. Ignoring bad behaviour is permission to continue it, and changes the culture of the IETF to exclude valuable contributors. It…

"tone" that someone doesn't like is nowhere nearly the same as "bad 
behavior".   To call something bad behavior, you need a better reason 
than "tone".

And legitimizing sanctions based on "tone" is permission for 
manipulative and abusive people to continue to use that argument to shut 
down arguments of substance.

> That's such an interesting assertion. Why is challenging people to behave better an insult?
Because in many if not most cases it has nothing to do with behaving 
better.   It's just a way for someone to justify using their own 
prejudice to attack a speaker and distract from the speaker's message.

Keith

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:05:28 +1000

OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to unprofessional behaviour -- which *is* bad behaviour.

Also, there's a difference between "ignore it" and "don't sanction it" -- and again a difference between social sanctions and official ones.

Cheers,

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 9:52 am, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> "tone" that someone doesn't like is nowhere nearly the same as "bad behavior".   To call something bad behavior, you need a better reason than "tone".
> 
> And legitimizing sanctions based on "tone" is permission for manipulative and abusive people to continue to use that argument to shut down arguments of substance.
> 
> Because in many if not most cases it has nothing to do with behaving better.   It's just a way for someone to justify using their own prejudice to attack a speaker and distract from the speaker's message.
> 
> Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:06:28 -0400

On 9/2/19 7:02 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> to which you are objecting.

Let's not get hung up on the term.   If the term "tone policing" is 
ambiguous I'm fine with using a different term.   But it's a bit tricky 
though, because I've seen so many attacks on speakers with no more 
justification than "tone" cited.  What would you call it?

> If I were to comment on one of
I don't think those examples are about tone either, and neither do I 
think they're representative of the justifications for the attacks on 
speakers' "tone" that I've seen.
> not depending on how the categories are defined helps any of us.

IMO, we need much more precise reasons than "tone" or even "harshness" 
to justify sanctioning speakers or even to justify distracting away from 
their contributions.

As far as I can tell, attacks on speakers' "tone" are nearly always either:

(a) a way to distract from the speaker's message for political purposes 
(can't refute their technical argument - just get them frustrated then 
attack their "tone"!), and/or

(b) a way for the attackers to justify their prejudice against the speaker.

If a speaker is really behaving badly, there will be a better 
justification for sanctioning them than "tone".

So basically the attacks on tone need to stop.   They are not only 
counterproductive to IETF's work, they are a form of abuse.

Keith

p.s.  A bit more toward the definition Melinda cited - a hell of a lot 
of people in this world have had to deal with abuse.   If they see the 
world in sharp relief because of it, that's not their fault, and 
sometimes it's even to their advantage because they see things that 
other people miss.   Criticisms of others' tone has the (often 
unintentional, I hope) effect of exacerbating the abuse that others have 
suffered.    And using tone as an excuse to ignore or distract from 
their contributions is just adding insult to injury.   And people don't 
need to know whether or not a speaker has been subject to abuse - it's 
none of their business.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:11:32 -0400

On 9/2/19 8:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to unprofessional behaviour -- which*is*  bad behaviour.

No, "unprofessional behavior" is /not/ inherently bad behavior, for 
reasons already cited.   Too often, "professsional" is just another word 
that's used to justify abuse.

> Also, there's a difference between "ignore it" and "don't sanction it" -- and again a difference between social sanctions and official ones.

If pushback against people for their "tone" has a chilling effect on 
IETF contributions, I have a problem with it.   How can we make it 
acceptable in IETF to speak up against bad ideas if we demand that 
participants walk on eggshells?

All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we 
need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really are harmful to 
IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify 
whatever prejudices they have.

Keith

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:17:07 +0900

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Absolutely not agreed, for reasons that have been discussed at
> length. Ignoring bad behaviour is permission to continue it, and
> changes the culture of the IETF to exclude valuable contributors. It
> also makes this a toxic environment.

As for not changing the culture of the IETF, how do you evaluate
the following statement of an SAA I received:

 >    We understand that this style of communication was accepted (if
 >    not encouraged) in the past, but it is no longer the expectation
 >    now.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:19:24 +1000

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 10:11 am, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> No, "unprofessional behavior" is not inherently bad behavior, for reasons already cited.   Too often, "professsional" is just another word that's used to justify abuse.

An observation: you seem to be very focused on a specific kind of abuse. Is it really abusive to have the way you communicate challenged? As stated before, the substance of a message should not be ignored because of its form, but the form can and should be criticised if it causes harm -- especially if that harm is in convincing others that they don't want to participate in the discussion.

> If pushback against people for their "tone" has a chilling effect on IETF contributions, I have a problem with it.   How can we make it acceptable in IETF to speak up against bad ideas if we demand that participants walk on eggshells?

Are you really equating considering how your words affect others as "walking on eggshells?"

> All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really are harmful to IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify whatever prejudices they have.

I asked for examples. And, you must realise that the view that people are merely justifying prejudices cuts both ways...

Cheers,

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:21:21 -0400

>> also makes this a toxic environment.

IMO, nothing is doing more to make IETF a toxic environment than "tone 
policing" (for lack of a better term).

> >    not encouraged) in the past, but it is no longer the expectation

Assuming there was nothing else in the message that gave specific 
guidance, this does appear to be the very kind of abuse I'm opposed to.

Keith

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:22:09 +1000

> >    not encouraged) in the past, but it is no longer the expectation

I don't have much context here. Is the presumption in the question that *you* are the valuable contributor being excluded? If so, I'd point out that this appears to be a request to introspect about how your communication style affects others, not exclusion. You can still participate.

Cheers,

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:25:47 -0700

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:06 PM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that
> specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you
> communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to
> unprofessional behaviour -- which *is* bad behaviour.
>

I don't agree with this position, although I understand its intent is
well-meaning.

The problem is that it might discourage messages that advocate obsoleting
obsolete entire jobs, entire companies, entire protocols, etc. In some
sense, saying those things is unprofessional. It's not exactly a "never
burn bridges" strategy a businessman might have.

This is entirely separate from questioning peoples' expertise or motives.
Or, even worse, just bullying them for being new or using a word
incorrectly. This happens often in the IETF, and I agree with efforts to
tamp down on that. The IETF has taken a harsher stance on that, and I fully
support it.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 01:32:41 +0100

Hiya,

On 03/09/2019 01:11, Keith Moore wrote:
> Too often, "professsional" is just another word that's used to justify
> abuse.

Really? If you'd said mediocrity or nonsense I'd have agreed,
but abuse? I'd need relevant examples to start believing that
was a common problem TBH.

I do agree that professional mediocrity, nonsense and perhaps
"leadership" doing management instead of leading are more than
real dangers in the IETF but that seems like it ought be a
different discussion. (There are abuses of language involved
in such, but ISTM they're not really direct abuses of people.)

S.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:33:19 -0400

On 9/2/19 8:19 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> An observation: you seem to be very focused on a specific kind of abuse. Is it really abusive to have the way you communicate challenged?

It can be.  If it's used as a way to distract from technical 
contributions, absolutely it is.   If the accusation is based on nothing 
more than the complainer's prejudice or imagination about what the 
speaker's intent was or what the speaker might have been thinking, 
absolutely it is.

Having said that, constructive private feedback can be helpful 
sometimes, but it has to be used carefully.   Such feedback needs to be 
specific enough that the speaker understands what the complainer is 
complaining about - not anywhere nearly as vague as a complaint about 
"tone".   The feedback needs to be from someone whom the speaker has 
reason to respect.   Too often such feedback comes from people who are 
in no position to be giving it.  And it needs to be used sparingly.

But anytime someone takes it on themselves to say to someone "you're not 
saying that right" there's a danger that it does more harm than good, 
and it's as likely to be the complainer's fault as the speaker.

> As stated before, the substance of a message should not be ignored because of its form, but the form can and should be criticised if it causes harm -- especially if that harm is in convincing others that they don't want to participate in the discussion.

I acknowledge that this problem exists, but we need to have more precise 
standards than "tone" or "professional".

> Are you really equating considering how your words affect others as "walking on eggshells?"

No, I'm saying that when people attack others simply because they don't 
like their words, without being specific as to what's wrong and what 
problems it's causing, the speaker really has no idea as to how to use 
that feedback.   And yes, that's like walking on eggshells, particularly 
when those doing the attacking are in positions of power (though it can 
be abusive even if this is not the case).   And it must be realized that 
censorship in any form, even with more precise justification, is really 
dangerous.

>> All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really
>>   are harmful to IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify whatever prejudices they have.

I'd like to see examples too.   Anything better than "tone" would be a 
start.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:24:55 -0800

On 9/2/19 4:33 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> An observation: you seem to be very focused on a specific kind of
>> abuse. Is it really abusive to have the way you communicate challenged?

> speaker's intent was or what the speaker might have been thinking,

It seems to me that if the goal is to have free and constructive
discussion, it's important to acknowledge that some language/"tone"
can militate against that happening, and create a hostile environment
in which some participants may (and, as we know from experience, do)
choose not to speak, choose not to continue to participate, and so on.

But I'm trying to understand the broader context here, as well.  What
we're asking for is no more stringent than what's expected in the
typical workplace, conferences, other technical bodies, and so on.
In many cases, it's less.  Do you feel that the typical workplace,
conferences like RailsConf, and technical communities like Mozilla's are
unsafe for honest technical discussion?

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:32:24 +0900

Keith Moore wrote:

 > what kinds of behavior really are harmful to IETF

Not reading the draft, of course.

> guidance, this does appear to be the very kind of abuse I'm opposed to.

There is none.

When police arrests a suspect by warrant, the warrant describes
which code the suspect acted against.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:42:15 +0900

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I don't have much context here. Is the presumption in the question
> that *you* are the valuable contributor being excluded?

No. I'm asking whether, do you think, "this style of communication
was accepted" and "it is no longer the expectation now", are a valid
statement or not, which has nothing specific to my posting.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:55:41 -0400

> choose not to speak, choose not to continue to participate, and so on.

I do acknowledge that this can happen.   But I don't think it's a 
justification for discouraging people whose "tone" one does not like, or 
for favoring the contributions of those whose "tone" seems more 
pleasing.   Rather I think we need to try harder to understand those 
whose "tone" is harder to deal with, because quite often those people 
are the ones who have rare and valuable insight.

Part of the problem is that preferences for "tone" are nowhere nearly 
objective.  It's just another kind of prejudice.   I suspect we all have 
such prejudices, but the thing to do is to try to work past them rather 
than insist that others cater to our prejudices.

I'll give a personal example from long ago, of one of the (several) 
reasons I have a problem with "tone", and one of the reasons I think 
it's mostly another form of prejudice that should not be encouraged:

When I was a grad student, my assistantship was being what we then 
called "sys admins" (and what are now sometimes called "IT people").  
Our jobs were to maintain the department's computer systems.   This 
started as a group of three grad students (with minimal supervision) and 
eventually was around eight.    We were a good team; we all worked 
together and made decisions in technical discussions in which everyone 
was free to speak and decisions were (mostly) based on technical merit - 
if you could convince someone that an idea was likely to work well and 
be implementable with the resources we had, it was likely to win 
favor.   We got a lot of useful work done and built a really nice 
environment for our faculty and students, well ahead of its time.

At some point the department decided to hire one of us full time as the 
technical director of the admin staff.   Nothing else really changed 
except that that person worked more hours than the rest of us.   We 
still worked together well, we still made decisions the same way.

The problems started when new people came on board.   They couldn't 
understand the way we had traditionally made decisions through technical 
discussions and consensus.   They insisted that we should not be able to 
argue against the technical opinion of the director, even though the 
director insisted that it was okay and that we should, for discussion 
purposes, act as technical peers.    Eventually the director found that 
he couldn't get any work done because the new staff members were so 
upset.   So we had to stop having those discussions and stop making 
decisions that way.  And the quality of the services suffered and 
eventually became much more expensive.

"tone" wasn't the problem at all.   There was no disrespect intended, 
implied, or in reality.   But the new people couldn't manage to see it 
any other way.

If that is like the problem we're seeing in IETF, where newcomers simply 
don't get the culture, we do ourselves no favors by claiming that "tone" 
is the problem.   That's why I think we need to drill down some more.

----

IETF has a decades-long history of having peer-to-peer technical 
discussions, of eschewing hierarchy in technical matters, of being open 
to input from anyone.   This culture has often served IETF, and the 
Internet, quite well.   It's not perfect, and there's certainly 
opportunity for improvement.   But it's a LOT better than one based on 
hierarchy.

And while I think we should be open to constructive changes to our 
culture, IETF has its own culture for valid and important reasons.   The 
idea that we should instead adopt the "professional" culture of 
business, seems like a disaster to me. We're not a business, we have a 
vastly different purpose.   Our job is not to follow the whims of 
corporate overlords or to gain favor of stockholders who are seeking to 
make quick money.   We necessarily have to think longer term and look at 
a much wider range of interests than a typical business does.   The 
typical business approach to decision-making is an extremely poor fit here.

> typical workplace, conferences, other technical bodies, and so on.

Many workplaces are profoundly dysfunctional, so those are not good 
examples.   As for other conferences, if they're just academic 
conferences where people are presenting rather than trying to make 
decisions, I agree that a different approach is appropriate in those 
contexts.   But I don't think they're good examples for IETF either.

> unsafe for honest technical discussion?

As far as I can tell, for typical large corporate workplaces, the answer 
is yes.   I can't speak to the latter two, having no experience with them.

Keith

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:25:19 -0500

On 9/2/19 8:55 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> Rather I think we need to try harder to understand those whose "tone" 
> is harder to deal with, because quite often those people are the ones 
> who have rare and valuable insight. 

There's an increasing recognition within the software development 
industry that extremely smart people who are rough around the edges in 
the way you describe ultimately cause more harm to an organization than 
their contributions help. When you dig into the rationale, a lot of this 
thinking translates directly to standards development. See 
<https://www.google.com/search?q=toxic+rockstar+programmers> for a 
nearly infinite number of articles that go into why these people need -- 
for the sake of the organization -- to either learn to contribute in a 
non-toxic fashion, or be shown the door.

/a

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:02:07 -0400

On 9/2/19 10:25 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> the way you describe ultimately cause more harm to an organization 
> than their contributions help.

I think we're talking about very different kinds of people here, though 
of course it's hard to tell because "tone" is so vague.

I've seen evidence of such increasing "recognition" too, at least in the 
form of articles on LinkedIn.  One of the things that disturbs me about 
such article is that there is often a chorus of response that are 
somewhat of the form "yes, smart people really do get in the way, and we 
need to get rid of them".   But there's a lot of difference between 
"smart people" and "people whose tone someone doesn't like" so I don't 
think it's appropriate to lump them in the same pile.

But because it may be the case that some people are thinking of "smart 
people", as people who use inappropriate "tone", I would like to drill 
down a bit further:

I don't think the issue is intelligence, mostly.  I think the issue is 
whether someone can see things from multiple points of view and is 
capable of compromise.   There are intelligent people are are good at 
those things.   And there are intelligent people who simply cannot see 
things from any other point of view and for whom no compromise will ever 
be acceptable.   So I think intelligence and ability to work toward 
compromise are orthogonal.

There are some rather famous examples of the latter kind of person, who 
have made extremely valuable contributions to networking and/or computer 
science.   But offhand I can't think of any who have been successful in 
a consensus-based standards organization.  I suspect that an intelligent 
person who can see things from multiple points of view and is willing to 
work toward seeing how to build a compromise can still be successful in 
IETF - or at least could do well in the IETF of several years ago (not 
sure about today).   On the other hand, someone who couldn't see the 
merits in other points of view and/or wasn't willing to compromise, 
probably wouldn't have ever felt successful or useful in IETF, and 
probably abandoned trying to work here fairly quickly.   So in summary, 
I don't think IETF has had too many problems with the kind of 
intelligent person who can't compromise.

But there is yet another phenomenon that is part of this picture, which 
is that some people are hostile to and prejudiced against people who are 
intelligent.   And culturally speaking, at least in the US (can't speak 
for elsewhere), there has been a widespread backlash against intelligent 
people.   This has certainly had a profound effect on US politics, at 
least.  Looking at the spate of articles (such as those you cited) of 
the form "intelligent people bad", it's hard to not wonder if that's 
part of the same trend.

In case it's not clear, I don't think that prejudice against intelligent 
people, or against people with different views (who might or might not 
be more intelligent than average) has any place in IETF, and I hope 
you're not suggesting that it does.   Quite the contrary, IETF 
decision-making needs to be informed by a wide variety of views, and 
emphatically not (for example) just the views or large corporations that 
are trying to own a piece of the "market".   IETF needs outliers 
(whether or not they're highly intelligent).

> When you dig into the rationale, a lot of this thinking translates 
> directly to standards development. See 
> nearly infinite number of articles that go into why these people need 
> -- for the sake of the organization -- to either learn to contribute 
> in a non-toxic fashion, or be shown the door.

Again, we really need to drill down past vague words like "toxic".  
Quite honestly, I find your words in the subject message toxic, but I 
don't think your contributions should be censored for that reason.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:10:45 -0400

On Sep 2, 2019, at 23:03, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Again, we really need to drill down past vague words like "toxic".  Quite honestly, I find your words in the subject message toxic, but I don't think your contributions should be censored for that reason.

Okay. Would you agree that if a person engages in discussion by stating their opinion over and over again, without ever considering in any meaningful way what the other people in the discussion are saying, that this would be toxic to the discussion, even if such as person were being superficially polite?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:16:18 -0400

> Okay. Would you agree that if a person engages in discussion by stating their opinion over and over again, without ever considering in any meaningful way what the other people in the discussion are…

No, I wouldn't agree to that statement.   If there were rules limiting 
the amount of discussion that were flagrantly and repeatedly broken, 
that would be a different matter.

Also, a question of whether someone considers in any meaningful way what 
the other people are saying, is highly subjective. Especially if those 
people won't really explain what they mean, and keep expecting others to 
read their minds.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Keith

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 03:50:03 +0000 (UTC)

One of the things that I've noticed is that,
should one persist in a technical argument
and in holding a locally-unpopular view that is
actually difficult to disagree with on a technical
basis, conversation will eventually shift from the
technical merits of that argument to the tone of one's
viewpoint, and eventually to one's worth as a person.
Which makes it more difficult to keep expressing the
technical viewpoint in the group, which is rather
the point of the shaming exercise.

This is group dynamics and human nature, basically.
It's not what you say, it's not whether it's right,
it's whether saying it is politically inconvenient
to the group.

The individual isn't the issue; the group is.
And tone police are a part of that group process.

L.

if we're rotating sergeant-at-arms, I'm all for them
spinning in their graves.

Lloyd Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood

On Tuesday, 3 September 2019, 11:56:58 GMT+10, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote: 

[..]

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:54:53 -0700

> unsafe for honest technical discussion?

It might help to be more straightforward about the fact that "rough
consensus and running code" can often mean that the opinions of some people
count more than others, on a given issue. For example, I don't expect any
of these RFC Editor function arguments will matter much to me, so I don't
think my opinion should count for much, unless I find a bug of some sort.
This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. It prevents vote stuffing,
obstructionism, spam, and many other kinds of bad behavior.

On the other hand, this approach does dictate a more hands-off approach
when there are competing solutions. I think the IETF has gotten worse at
allowing these situations to play out.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:12:23 -0500

> spinning in their graves.

Can you clarify what you mean by this comment? It's easy to misread as 
you wishing death to the current sergeants at arms, and I can't imagine 
that's what you meant.

/a

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:46:00 +0900

Keith Moore wrote:

> But offhand I can't think of any who have been successful in 
> sure about today).

Viewing from a point outside of IETF, politically successfully
producing garbage protocols within IETF is not really a success.

 > On the other hand, someone who couldn't see the

Application protocols may be full of compromise.

Scalability of protocols related to infrastructure is often very
fragile easily damaged by slight compromise to make them garbage.

Examples are most multicast related protocols.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:49:20 -0700

On 9/2/19 9:12 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> you wishing death to the current sergeants at arms, and I can't 
> imagine that's what you meant.

   At the risk of being accused of calling someone unreasonable let me 
say that I don't
think any reasonable person would take that comment that way. 
Furthermore, your email
is a kind of "tone policing" that has been discussed here. You're 
stating that the
speaker should watch how he says what he says because it could be 
misinterpreted. This
could have a chilling effect.

   I emitt4ed an audible laugh when I read that, the literal L-O-L. It 
really doesn't
happen very often so I appreciate it when it does. And I think it would 
be a bad thing
if this sort of dry humor was avoided in order to avoid the possibility 
of causing offense
or causing harm or being toxic or being harsh or any of the other vague 
tripwires that
people have tried to lay out.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:29:06 -0700

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:50 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> And I think it would  be a bad thing if this sort of dry humor was avoided
> in order to avoid the possibility of causing offense

Yes, we wouldn't want a single dragonfly to be silenced.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 07:35:19 -0400

That is essentially what PR actions are for.  Repeatedly saying the same thing is an example of  abusive behavior. If you did it in a f2f conversation, people would walk away. Here, they can’t. So we need PR actions. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 2, 2019, at 23:16, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> No, I wouldn't agree to that statement.   If there were rules limiting the amount of discussion that were flagrantly and repeatedly broken, that would be a different matter.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:25:30 -0400

> That is essentially what PR actions are for.  Repeatedly saying the same thing is an example of  abusive behavior. If you did it in a f2f conversation, people would walk away. Here, they can’t. So…

I respectfully disagree, for multiple reasons.  One is that even a 
judgment of "repeatedly saying the same thing" is itself subjective.   
Especially over email it's normal to refine one's statements over 
time.   To an observer who isn't watching closely, it may look as if a 
speaker is repeatedly saying the same thing, when that is not in fact 
the case.

The second reason is that accusing someone of repeatedly saying the same 
thing (and implied threats of PR) can itself be a bullying tactic and a 
form of abuse.  Trying to suppress discussion on a subject important to 
IETF is not appropriate.

A related reason is that when a person finds himself or herself (or his 
or her ideas) subject to attack from multiple individuals, that person 
is naturally going to need to respond more often.   It should not matter 
how many times a person or that person's ideas are attacked.   Bullies 
in particular don't want to bother to understand the positions of those 
they're attacking, they just want that person to back down through sheer 
intimidation.   What should matter is the quality of the arguments being 
made and whether those arguments show an to understanding of the other 
position(s) and willingness take it/them into account.

Keith

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:56:50 +0000

Hi,

I also think it's not about how often you say something, but in what context.

Assume that a WG is debating on whether to use X or Y. The proponents of both X and Y may repeat their arguments many times during the debate.

However, at some point the WG decides, using proper IETF procedures, to go for X.

I think the people who supported Y should respect that decision, and not continue their arguments for Y - unless they have NEW information to prove that Y is better, that X is broken etc etc etc.

Regards,

Christer 

On 03/09/2019, 15.26, "ietf on behalf of Keith Moore" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:06:58 -0400

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think the people who supported Y should respect that decision, and not continue their arguments for Y - unless they have NEW information to prove that Y is better, that X is broken etc 
> 

I agree with that statement, but will note that the hypothetical situation you describe in a WG is quite different from the situation in this thread.  

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:37:53 -0400

The problem generally is that there are ways to take up more than your fair share of the space in the conversation. This is one. If there is no regulation of this behavior it disenfranchises people who have work to do: precisely the people we want participating. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 08:57, Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:45:42 -0400

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 09:37, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The problem generally is that there are ways to take up more than your fair share of the space in the conversation. This is one.

Having been oon that side two years in a document, there is a counter side to your argument. People joining the discussion late and not reading the previous discussion, bringing up the same refuted arguments again. If the people who keep countering those same arguments stop, it leaves the wrong impression on the list that those arguments were invalidated.

I don’t have a good answer other than the WG chair posting a summary of arguments based on the past to reset the discussion after an extended lively discussion.

Paul

> If there is no regulation of this behavior it disenfranchises people who have work to do: precisely the people we want participating.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:51:05 -0400

> The problem generally is that there are ways to take up more than your fair share of the space in the conversation. This is one. If there is no regulation of this behavior it disenfranchises people…

If you want people to participate, maybe you shouldn't be arguing in 
favor of censorship for arbitrary reasons.   And maybe you shouldn't be 
trying to shout down people who are against that.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:51:38 -0400

> I don’t have a good answer other than the WG chair posting a summary of arguments based on the past to reset the discussion after an extended lively discussion.

I agree, and I think that actually is the answer. Unfortunately it requires a lot of work from the chairs, but the tendency of chairs to not follow discussions is extremely problematic. How do you assess consensus otherwise?

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:00:29 +0100

Keith Moore wrote on 03/09/2019 14:51:
> And maybe you shouldn't be trying to shout down people

This is your 16th email on the topic since yesterday morning GMT.

Who's shouting at whom?

Nick

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:04:16 -0400

> This is your 16th email on the topic since yesterday morning GMT.

I'm just sending replies to people arguing for censorship.   What I 
wonder is, why aren't more people objecting?

Keith

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:05:02 +0100

> wonder is, why aren't more people objecting?

17.

Nick

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:23:38 -0400

On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm just sending replies to people arguing for censorship.   What I wonder is, why aren't more people objecting?

I suspect the reason is that I am not the only one who sees excessively frequent posting of the same message as a form of censorship.

Rather than responding again, perhaps you should listen for a while?

---

From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:22:22 +0200

On 3 Sep 2019, at 16:23, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

So going back to the issue at hand, rather than people and what they should do or thing; on technical mailing lists I find it common to see pro/con arguments near the core of a design of principle repeated. Often. 

Sometimes I feel i can attribute that simply to people relatively new to the matter - and who have not had the time to read up on the design; or the design being so specific that it is hard to relate to from an adjacent field. Or because technical designs often need a a fairly black and white take on things in order to be implemented on a computer.

But equally often - it simply is because the structure of a lot of issues is that desire or plan for feature N+1 gets stuck/hits some crucial bit deep down - and the same argument `why that cannot be done’ bubbles up again. Just like the speed of light or conservation of mass often blocks a fun addition to physics.  Or that you need UTF8 for XXX, or a type of `escaping’ of the next character, etc. Or a `get out of jail card’ into the land of MIME. Or ‘order’ on something like a struct.

And although some percentage of that is, or becomes, a natural reaction of jaded people; and arguably the `reject’ may come too soon or without careful study - I find more of then than not that a path I embark on to fiddle/improve a protocol; hits such a technical 1+1 needs to be 3 sort of snag.

So designing a set of social rules that is overly sensitive to such repeat-a(core)-argument seems a bit out of place for such a technical space.

Dw

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:28:00 -0400

> So designing a set of social rules that is overly sensitive to such repeat-a(core)-argument seems a bit out of place for such a technical space.

The core point that I am seeing in what you have said is one I agree with: there is no simple heuristic that will produce a good outcome.  My takeaway from this is that in order to get a good outcome, it’s necessary that someone take responsibility for actually curating the conversation.  I agree that heuristic censorship won’t help, but a completely laissez-faire approach doesn’t seem to work well either, so it seems clear that it’s worth at least investigating whether any improvement is available.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:41:20 -0700

> wonder is, why aren't more people objecting?

   Well I certainly object but you are quite capably handling it. I do think
the SAA role has been abused in order to squelch discussion. I am 
particularly

 >    not encouraged) in the past, but it is no longer the expectation

Perhaps I missed it but who decided that which was encouraged in the past is
now forbidden? And given that he states there was no additional guidance in
that diktat this has the potential of becoming Kafkaesque if we don't put a
stop to it.

   Culture arises organically, not top-down. If IETF culture changes it 
won't
be from the leadership deciding among themselves what it will be and then to
use the SAA to impose it.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:09:40 -0500

On 9/2/19 11:49 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> misinterpreted.

This isn't about tone. It's explicitly about what was meant, not how it 
was said. "I hope you die" is the kind of so-over-the-line ad hominem 
that it gets used as an *example* of an ad hominem. I was hoping Lloyd 
could clarify that's not what he meant. His silence is concerning.

I mean, I get it. It wasn't meant literally, and it was included because 
Lloyd thought it sounded witty. But it's still an attack on the 
volunteers who attempt to keep this list usable. Not what they've done, 
and not the role they're serving, but their actual persons. And that's 
the exact kind of thing we had people lining up at the microphone in 
Montreal to say isn't okay any more.

/a

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:15:05 -0400

On Sep 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

>   Well I certainly object but you are quite capably handling it.

Thanks, but I wouldn’t mind more help.  I’m pretty fed up with people who won’t respond to concerns but just try to bully into submission (including both tone and volume policing) those who oppose them.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 10:15:52 -0700 (PDT)

> the SAA role has been abused in order to squelch discussion.

Exactly. I strongly object as well, but Keith is doing a great job of making
all the points I would have made, and doing it a lot quicker than I possibly
could. (I'm the sort who finally thinks of the better argument on the car ride
home...)

I'm only responding now because it seems it's now become necessary to show
support - despite being told in the past that simple shows of support are
nothing but useless clutter.

> I am particularly appalled by the message Masataka Ohta received from a SAA,
> namely:

>    Culture arises organically, not top-down. If IETF culture changes it won't

Leadership may not be able to create new culture, but it can most definitely
damage an existing one.

				Ned

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 10:42:47 -0700

On 9/3/19 9:09 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> This isn't about tone. It's explicitly about what was meant, not how 
> it was said. "I hope you die" is the kind of so-over-the-line ad 
> hominem that it gets used as an *example* of an ad hominem. I was 
> hoping Lloyd could clarify that's not what he meant. His silence is 
> concerning.
>
> I mean, I get it. It wasn't meant literally, and it was included 
> because Lloyd thought it sounded witty. But it's still an attack on 
> the volunteers who attempt to keep this list usable. Not what they've 
> done, and not the role they're serving, but their actual persons. And 
> that's the exact kind of thing we had people lining up at the 
> microphone in Montreal to say isn't okay any more.

   If you get it, if you know it wasn't meant literally, and if you know 
it was included because
he thought it sounded witty then this is about tone. You are objecting 
to _how_ he made what you
admit was, and was intended to be, a joke.

   You can't say you know it wasn't meant literally and then misquote it 
(he didn't say "I hope you
die") and say it was about actual persons. This was quite obviously 
about the role of SAA. It was
a crack about hoping that the SAA goes into a grave and not a specific 
person who happens to be a
SAA right now. He was obviously not hoping that someone else becomes 
SAA. At least that's not how
I took his joke. So it had to be about the role.

   And the fact that you're blowing this way out of proportion with this 
pearl clutching ("his
silence is concerning") illustrates the "tone police" problem that has 
been discussed on this list
for the last couple days. If a listener is the deciding factor of 
whether a statement violated
some vague rule on "harshness" or "toxicity" or whatever then we will 
begin downward spiral of
hyperbolic offense being taken as a way of claiming power over others. 
We will begin a kind of
Maoist cultural revolution in the IETF. Let's not go there.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:08:22 -0700

>> Well I certainly object but you are quite capably handling it. I do
>> think the SAA role has been abused in order to squelch discussion.

ok.  ok.  i have not bothered to post because i have nothing new to say
and i don't think those who need to are actually listening.

> Leadership may not be able to create new culture, but it can most
> definitely damage an existing one.

leadership can lead toward new culture;which is why they are called
leaders.  managers can not.

randy

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:11:55 -0400

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:15:52AM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > I'm just sending replies to people arguing for censorship    What I
> Exactly. I strongly object as well, but Keith is doing a great job
> of making all the points I would have made, and doing it a lot
> quicker than I possibly could. (I'm the sort who finally thinks of
> the better argument on the car ride home...)
> 
> I'm only responding now because it seems it's now become necessary
> to show support - despite being told in the past that simple shows
> of support are nothing but useless clutter.

I'll add my hum in support of the spirit of Keith's concerns, even if
I might agree that posting as often as he does is, as a tactical
matter, might perhaps not be as effective as waiting to batch up
responses to multiple messages all at once.  Replying to each message
in a "last post wins" style of argumentation tends to be counter
productive since it causes people to be annoyed, and humans being
emotional creatures, this can cause them to be less receptive to your
arguments.

That being said, people who are arguing in favor of trying to
legislate a more "civil" form of discourse (which sounds better than
"less toxic", although both are hard to define and tend to be very
subjective) have probably caused more noise than if they had simply
just hit the 'd' key and moved on.

And to the extent that someone were to send private e-mail to trying
to pursuade someone, it is my experience that doing so by at least
*trying* to point out that a more moderate style discourse might to be
there benefit is going to be more likely to be productive than
threatening people (explicitly or implicitly) with being silenced by
P.R. actions.  This includes both people who have been acting in their
roles as SAA, and people who have been trying to "help".  As I have
stated earlier, I preferred to have a much lighter touch when I served
as an SAA, and the more aggressive, more heavy-handed approach is, in
my opinion, doing more harm than good.

I'll end this with a plea that people *try* to remember that the
saying of "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you
receive", applies to e-mail messages as well as protocols.  Even if
something is *allowed*, trying to go up to the line of what is
acceptable does not make for a good implementation, even if it is
legal according to the spec.

And trying to assume that any message should be taken in the worst
light possible, and trying to engender outrage, either in yourself, or
others, by taking any message which might be marginally deemed to be
offensive and crying foul that it is "unprofessional", and therefore
someone should have their posting privileges posted, is also not great
as an implementation.

"Can't we all just get along?"

					- Ted

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 05:47:04 +0900

Adam Roach wrote:

> But it's still an attack on the 

I'm afraid some of us are saying that what they actually did is to make
this list comfortable to leaders, which makes the list useless.

> and not the role they're serving, but their actual persons.

 > spinning in their graves.

Are you saying "sergeant-at-arms" is not the role they're serving
but actual persons?

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 23:24:02 +0200

On 3 Sep 2019, at 19:42, Dan Harkins wrote:

>   If you get it, if you know it wasn't meant literally, and if you know it was included because
> he thought it sounded witty then this is about tone. You are objecting to _how_ he made what you

We have many non-native-english-speaking-persons reading what people write on this list (including myself). We have to be VERY careful when walking down the path of discussing what the interpretation of actually written words mean in the context they are written.

Just be careful...please...

   Patrik

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:21:41 +0000 (UTC)

Adam,
Why would I hope you die? I already know you're going to die. And so do you. That's... usual. It's not ad hominem, it's just pointless.
concern about me being silent? That's... unusual. (or just showing impatience.) While passive-aggressively referring to me in the third person and reading my and others' minds? quite something.
but if obliquely criticising an authoriitarian role is the only thing that merits attention and yet is now beyond the pale, it's time to leave.
L.
goodbye, cruel world^W^W woke sealions!

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 2:09 am, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

/a

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:30:07 +0000

>> I'm just sending replies to people arguing for censorship.   What I wonder is, why aren't more people objecting?

I object to your use of the term "censorship," I find it more inflammatory than useful.

The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more inclusivity.  You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I misunderstand you?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:49:58 -0400

> The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more inclusivity.  You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I misunder…

You misunderstand me.    I do not object to trying to be more inclusive, 
but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined constraints 
on IETF contributions.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:03:25 -0400

On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You misunderstand me.    I do not object to trying to be more inclusive, but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined constraints on IETF contributions.

It might be worth pointing out that “imposing constraints” is really just an example of a feedback mechanism.   It is not the only possible feedback mechanism.   At present, we do not have a feedback mechanism at all.

What I personally want for a feedback mechanism is not exactly “imposing constraints,” but rather, strong and careful curation that rewards thoughtful responses and discards useless responses.   Everybody can respond.   You can respond usefully or uselessly.   But if you respond uselessly, it will be visibly evident that what you said was useless: you won’t feel satisfied.   And so people will tend to take more care in how they respond.

An example of a useless response is a response that is all tone.   An example of a useful response is a response with a lot of thoughtful content, regardless of tone.   Does this make sense?

The problem right now is that because there is no feedback loop, and because so much of what is said is useless, even if there are ten thousand subscribers to the IETF, I seriously doubt that even 0.01% of those people are actually following the discussions here carefully enough to get value out of them.  It’s just too much work.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:11:59 -0400

On 9/9/19 1:03 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> The problem right now is that because there is no feedback loop, and 
> because so much of what is said is useless, even if there are ten 
> thousand subscribers to the IETF, I seriously doubt that even 0.01% of 
> those people are actually following the discussions here carefully 
> enough to get value out of them.  It’s just too much work.

Different people will have different opinions about whether a message 
was useful or useless.  Who is right?   It's not as if everyone has the 
same concerns.   There are a very many discussions that appear on this 
list that I don't care about, but that doesn't make them unimportant.

Perhaps there are large numbers of readers who do not care whether IETF 
management silences or discourages posters whom they do not like.   That 
doesn't make the debate less important.

Perhaps there are large numbers of readers who trust IETF management to 
do the right thing.   That does not make the debate less important.

Perhaps there are large numbers of readers who have already made up 
their minds (either about the topic or about certain individuals who are 
posting) and just delete or skip over any message that pertains to this 
topic.  That does not make the debate less important.

Perhaps there are large numbers of readers who do care about this topic 
but who have given up hope of IETF adequately addressing it.   That's 
not a reason for those who do care to also give up.

Even though I've disagreed with a great many messages on this thread, I 
haven't seen a single useless message posted to it.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:27:53 -0400

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Even though I've disagreed with a great many messages on this thread, I haven't seen a single useless message posted to it.

This is because you have lots of free time with which to filter through all of the messages.   From my perspective, nearly every message sent on this thread has been useless, because it hasn’t added anything new to the discussion, but has consumed my time in reading it.

I would happily take part in (personally) funding someone to filter through this slush pile summarizing each topic that has been raised and what has been said on the topic.   If this were done, everything you said would be taken into account, but the number of times you said it would not.   This would not prevent you from speaking, but it would prevent you from speaking more loudly than others with less free time.

Those who consider it important to allow you to speak louder than everyone else could continue to consume the raw feed.   Those of us who don’t have time to do so could consume the processed feed.   Everybody would win, with one small exception: you would no longer be able to silence people by simply drowning them out.

I use you as an example here because you really are speaking about ten times more often than anyone else on this thread, but this works for tone policing as well: if I don’t want to have to engage with someone directly who I perceive as being unpleasant, I can simply consume the processed feed and never actually see zir words directly.   From my perspective, it will feel just as if ze is being nice and polite, even if ze is being quite unpleasant.

Because this would be totally voluntary and transparent, it’s hard to see how you could call it censorship.

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:36:13 -0400

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Doesn't this make Keith's point?  If we're *listening* to Keith, then
we take *his* view that "tone policing" is to him "censorship" at face
value.  What he chooses to call it is not really the point, it does
convey clearly that he sees real potential for abuse.

> The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now commonly
> seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more inclusivity.
> You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I misunderstand you?

This cuts to the substance...  When does the negative tone of a post
rise from firmly stated opinion to hostility that deters participation,
and warrant corrective guidance?

There is surely much room for error, but also some point at which
strong language dwarfs any accompanying argument and strays into
denigration or abuse.  If the focus shifts too much to policing
tone, then Keith's concerns become valid.  If on the other hand,
*arbitrarily hostile* posts are tolerated, so long as the post has
some technical merit, the medium becomes an unpleasant.

Whether we agree with Keith about the "censorship" label or not, his use
of it seems to me to be a legitimate way to express his view.

-- 
	Viktor.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:42:04 -0400

On 9/9/19 1:27 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> This is because you have lots of free time with which to filter through all of the messages.
False assumption.   Every minute I spend on this conversation is time I 
can't bill clients for, and I have a backlog of work.    I wouldn't be 
investing this effort if I didn't think it were important.
>  From my perspective, nearly every message sent on this thread has been useless, because it hasn’t added anything new to the discussion, but has consumed my time in reading it.
I don't feel like I should be bound by your perspective.   Several 
others have indicated publicly or privately that they do value my efforts.
> I would happily take part in (personally) funding someone to filter through this slush pile summarizing each topic that has been raised and what has been said on the topic.   If this were done, eve…

You could do your part to reduce the noise by not sending insulting 
messages, which generally merit face-saving responses.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:58:12 -0400

On Sep 9, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> False assumption.   Every minute I spend on this conversation is time I can't bill clients for, and I have a backlog of work.    I wouldn't be investing this effort if I didn't think it were important.

This is what “has free time” means, Keith.   You are objectively consuming more of our bandwidth than any other participant.  This is not ad hominem.  You can see it in Thomas Narten’s weekly summaries.

> You could do your part to reduce the noise by not sending insulting messages, which generally merit face-saving responses.

Isn’t this precisely the sort of statement to which the phrase “tone policing” is referring?

It might be instructive for you to consider just what it was that I said that was insulting.   AFAIK I just pointed out that you are using a perfectly valid tactic for trying to make yourself heard above those with whom you disagree.  And I said that I’d like a way to neutralize that tactic, because to me it not only seems unfair, but is, objectively, burdensome.   Was the content of what I said wrong, or just the tone?   If it was the tone, can you explain what was wrong about the tone?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:04:28 -0400

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> False assumption.   Every minute I spend on this conversation is time 
>> I can't bill clients for, and I have a backlog of work.    I wouldn't 
>> be investing this effort if I didn't think it were important.
>
> This is what “has free time” means, Keith.   You are objectively 
> consuming more of our bandwidth than any other participant.  This is 
> not ad hominem.  You can see it in Thomas Narten’s weekly summaries.

I can't help but be reminded of a gang of bullies who attack an 
individual, and who insist on their version of "fairness": everybody 
gets one punch per round.

> Isn’t this precisely the sort of statement to which the phrase “tone 

Not intended as such.   It's just an observation: if you attack someone 
you should expect them to respond.

Also, my objection to "tone policing" is that "tone" is arbitrary.   I 
would be much less like to object to a rule that said some version of 
"don't insult people".

Keith

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 15:10:01 -0400 (EDT)

> haven't seen a single useless message posted to it.

That is interesting, because I feel the entire thread has drowned out in
a very American cultural point of view of Absolute First Amendment rights.

And the original point of this email thread - that we need to do better to
create a _different_ atmosphere to promote a more inclusive and diverse
IETF participation - seems completely lost.

So let's try and turn this back on topic. We seem to agree that a change
is needed and that the current "anything goes, except very exceptional
posting priviledge revocation" method is not working. Knowing that
whatever method we use can be called "censorship", what can we do that
would resolve the worst and most apparent cases responsible for most
of the the non-inclusive and unfriendly atmosphere postings that are
happening across the IETF lists?

And specifically to Keith. If you do not think a moderating function can
be implemented that you can trust or that can comply with your view of
"bad censorship", what alternative ideas do you have? And if you do not
have any ideas, doesn't it seem fair to try some ideas that do not seem
to fit your personal view of "no censorship" but seem to fit the views
of some other people on the lists?

Paul

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:42:47 +0000

I am sorry if I was not clear.  I am saying "we are choosing to do A in order to get B"  You are saying "I want B without A"

So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 15:29:54 -0600

On 9/9/19 11:03 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ...

More feedback, good and not, would be wonderful.

 From my personal observation, the chairs should be more active in collecting consensus once a specific topic settles down or drags on too long. When there are two or more different proposals, then currently someone (often not the chair) declares consensus. Did the others agree? Or did they give up because they have to go back something else? Or did the editor(s) just decide what consensus was based on their guess or because they decided which they wanted? When some strongly object, they are still free to write their own draft and proposals, and submit them.

I have seen feedback from people that had no plans to implement. Often those hypothetical situations complicated things, and helped nothing in the long run, because no one implemented those features. Or they were just 'great' ideas that no one wanted in their code. The WG chair needs to inquire and send out a WG list email and gather consensus on that idea, not other WG members. Now it is a free-for-all and confusing.

I think it would be a good thing when more positive feedback was given to actual specific proposals. Nay-saying can be great when something does not work at all or some detail was forgotten. But arguing a hypothetical point without a proposal is often not useful, when done more than once on a specific point. How to fix it is often what is needed.

As to 'tone', I have seen people insulted because you did not think their proposal was fantastic. So what is 'tone'?
I can respectively disagree, that requires them to respectively acknowledge or at least accept the input as serious and reply accordingly.

"That was already discussed" as a reply can be a rude comment that should be replaced with something like "See the WG mailing list for the topic 'xyz'". Or no reply.

"That was discussed at the face to face meeting", is an irrelevant reply, and can be seen as a reply to shut down valid (or not) proposals. As the WG mailing list decides, not done in face to face meetings.  After a face to face meeting, there should be a follow up to the WG list with a summary of what the named participants agreed to, and *asking* or hinting that is the way to go. Then accepting and seriously evaluating any WG list replies. And accepting that you may have to re-hash the details of the face to face meeting. Because they also have the right to understand. When they do not understand, the issue will keep coming up over and over. So just get it out and open up the details.

When a WG direction is chosen, the chair needs to submit an email declaring the choice for all to see and understand. When people object, they are still free to write and submit their own proposals in order to influence the WG. Then they need to accept that people can read, accept, reject, or ignore that other proposal.

Sending out a "it is obvious" or "we have decided", type of messages, need to come from the WG chair. Not random people on the list that may or may not be representing or understanding the WG consensus.

And most importantly, when the WG chair does nothing, they need to be replaced with someone that has the time and desire to participate in the collection and reporting of consensus.

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
[email-masked]
714-989-6135

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:25:53 -0400

>> I am sorry if I was not clear.  I am saying "we are choosing to do A in order to get B"  You are saying "I want B without A"
I don't think that's what I'm saying.    I think I am instead saying: "I 
have serious doubts, from what little detail I've seen, that A is a good 
idea, or that it will help us to get to B.   It seems to have lots of 
potential for harm to IETF and its ability to actually reach consensus 
(as opposed to claiming consensus).   It would help to have more detail 
about what A actually is, the mechanisms for implementing it, and 
transparency and accountability for those implementing it.   I also 
don't think that this is something that is appropriate for leadership to 
impose in the absence of community consensus."

But I'm working on a concrete proposal.   Call it A-prime if you want.

Keith

p.s. Also, you seem to assume that A is now commonly accepted. I'm not 
sure about that, and I'm also fairly sure that some constraints that 
people now seem to want to impose on speech in contexts other than IETF, 
do great harm.    But again, without a more specific description of A, 
it's hard to tell.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 15:27:40 -0700

Hi Rich,

> So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?

   You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.

   What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me specific 
examples of things
that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as less 
so?

   I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not 
sure what A is.

   If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for 
newcomers then great.
If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming it 
"toxic" or "harsh" or
"hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:43:15 -0400

Dan, you asked for specific examples of speech whose acceptability has 
changed.

A clear and simple example is personal attacks.  It is no longer 
acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to an 
argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so we 
should ignore your input."  Other even more extreme and personal 
comments were once accepted in this community.   they are not accepted 
any longer.

This debate seems to be about how do we handle cases which are not 
simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such.  (Part of 
the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult and 
when.)   Given what has been acceptable in at least some working groups 
in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the situation. 
Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid going overboard 
and losing the free technical discussion that is the core of our work.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/9/2019 6:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>      > The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now 
>> commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more 
>> inclusivity.  You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I 
>> misunderstand you?
>> I am sorry if I was not clear.  I am saying "we are choosing to do A 
>> in order to get B"  You are saying "I want B without A"
>>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:51:47 +0000

>       You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
  
Not just me.  Judging solely by traffic on this list it seems to me that many people feel this way. That's not necessarily an accurate measurement, admittedly. I can add impressions I have from co-presenting the newcomer's tutorial  multiple times over the past few years.
  
    examples of things
  
I hesitate to do so as it's only my perspective, and my perspective is further narrowed by the small focus of my involvement. (For example, I rarely venture outside of the Security area.) But if pressed, I will do so.

    sure what A is.

In the context of the thread(s) of discussion here, I would have thought it was obvious.

    "toxic" or "harsh" or
  
How about "self awareness" or "self restraint" at times?

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:03:03 +0000

have serious doubts, from what little detail I've seen, that A is a good 
    idea, or that it will help us to get to B.

That is not how I understood you. Cf https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8YMkOqbhBoP3uDrCAUW3Q8IbYGo
  
>    But I'm working on a concrete proposal.   Call it A-prime if you want.
  
I look forward to seeing it.

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:15:22 +1000

> comments were once accepted in this community. they are not accepted 

Like for example this thing, which I'm not particularly proud of:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/zPoaR1ezRWRs4ji9rbojXLuomFE

The whole experience around there nearly turned me off the IETF entirely, largely due to things like this:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/4bg3IkTTJvCAcr8aro5wCyNjZSA

... and I know Mark's not around to defend himself here, so I can only point out the flaws in my own communication style there and the missed opportunities to progress work because I was too busy butting heads.

I'm sad I never got to meet Mark in person. I think a lot of the value of in-person meetings is the sitting together and looking into each other's eyes and realising that the other person isn't a moron and isn't deliberately trying to break the world!

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:20:26 -0700

Hi Joel,

On 9/9/19 3:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to 
> an argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so 
> we should ignore your input."  Other even more extreme and personal 

   I witnessed someone at the mic tell a presenter that his was the 
worst idea
in the history of the IETF. That's not really acceptable but it was also 
way back
in the 20th century. I haven't heard that kind of talk in 2 decades. 
Admittedly
I tend to hang out with a small group of people and probably missed some 
egregious
behavior but I don't think personal attacks have ever been OK.

> simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such. (Part 
> of the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult 
> and when.)   Given what has been acceptable in at least some working 
> groups in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the 
> situation. Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid 
> going overboard and losing the free technical discussion that is the 
> core of our work.

   Right, and there's the rub: "but can be taken as such." We are sadly 
becoming a kind of victim
culture where claiming victimhood empowers the claimant. Combine that 
with the fact that there are
many people entering the workaday world with a degree who have gotten 
participation trophies their
entire life, had helicopter parents ensuring that nothing troubling ever 
entered their bubble, and
who went to universities with safe spaces (coloring books optional) that 
insulated them from things
that might sound "harsh" or "mean", and now we have a potential to do 
great harm.

   Yes, we need to avoid going overboard. Agree 100%. How do we handle 
cases that aren't simple and
obvious personal insults? We let them slide and wait. I'd say ignore the 
comment as much as
possible. If the speaker meant it as an attack a subsequent statement 
will be more simple and obvious,
and there will be a subsequent statement if the attack is ignored.

   regards,

   Dan.

>>    What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me 
>> specific examples of things
>> that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as 
>> less so?
>>
>> If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming 
>> it "toxic" or "harsh" or

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:27:59 +0100

I was thinking it'd be hard to provide good examples,
but you've done that excellently.

To whatever extent you're not proud of that 2011 mail,
I think this 2019 mail repairs lots. A fine example
that we can all live and learn, and to follow.

Thank you,
S.

On 10/09/2019 00:15, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> .... and I know Mark's not around to defend himself here, so I can only point out the flaws in my own communication style there and the missed opportunities to progress work because I was too busy butting heads.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:28:15 +1200

"    - If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
      issues rather than the personalities involved."

RFC1855, October 1995. I don't think there is anything new about avoiding personal attacks. However, I agree that the subjective threshold may have moved.

From a message on a public list in 1996:

"You are consistently demonstrating you have absolutely no clue of the issues and while mildly amusing, this is beginning to get tiresome."

Was that OK in 1996? Would it be OK in 2019?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:31:38 -0700

Hi Bron,

On 9/9/19 4:15 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> The whole experience around there nearly turned me off the IETF 
> entirely, largely due to things like this:
>
> ... and I know Mark's not around to defend himself here, so I can only 
> point out the flaws in my own communication style there and the missed 
> opportunities to progress work because I was too busy butting heads.

   There are plenty of emails I am ashamed of.

> I'm sad I never got to meet Mark in person.  I think a lot of the 
> value of in-person meetings is the sitting together and looking into 
> each other's eyes and realising that the other person isn't a moron 
> and isn't deliberately trying to break the world!

   Yup, after a flare-up on this list some years ago in which I was kind 
of active
I was sitting at the bar in the IETF hotel with an IESG member. Another 
IESG member
came up to him and said, "what's with this Harkins guy? He's such an 
asshole!" The
response was, "ask him, he's sitting right here." So this other IESG 
member and I
went and found a table to chat. It was my "tone" on the list that got 
his dander up.
But we had a nice exchange and the opportunity to sit together and have 
a talk really
helped. Email is a flawed medium for communication but it scales well so 
we use it.

   I guess maybe we shouldn't read so much into an email or at least not 
draw conclusions
about people based solely on the emails they send.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:32:12 +1000

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 09:20, Dan Harkins wrote:
> in the 20th century. 

I last saw something like that at the BIMI BOF in Prague at IETF104. Not quite "the worst idea in the history of the IETF", but a very strong and emotional "this is a horribly bad idea and I strongly oppose the IETF doing any work in this area and I will fight you to the death and die on this hill".

And I'm glad people can say that about ideas. I disagree on this specific topic, but I do think the IETF needs the ability to say "not everything is a good idea"!

I didn't take notes about who said that, which is probably a good thing :) I took notes during that session, so I know the concepts raised, but I didn't note who raised all of them.

> I haven't heard that kind of talk in 2 decades. 
> Admittedly

But it wasn't "you're bad people", it was "this is a bad idea". Keeping that distinction is 100% a good thing.

I had a good chat with the proponents of BIMI afterwards, and they were not dissuaded by their experience, which is good - but I can imagine it would have turned away people who weren't prepared for being told so forcefully that their idea was awful.

Bron.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 04:12:09 +0900

Ted Lemon wrote:

>  At present, we do not have a feedback mechanism at all.

"restrict posting" in rfc3005 is the feedback mechanism we
have at present.

Because of the harsh nature of the mechanism, the system is
harmed by the mechanism, unless feedback gain is very small.

> not exactly “imposing constraints,” but rather, strong and careful curation

How can it be "strong"? By "imposing constraints"?

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:00:18 -0700

> Was that OK in 1996? Would it be OK in 2019?

   If that was the only message I don't think it would be OK. It 
might've been tolerated
in 1996.

   Thing is, we're a consensus-based organization and RFC 7282 gives a 
good standard that it
is reached when all issues have been addressed, not accommodated. So if 
the recipient
of this email had raised a number of issues, let's say each one was 
individually clueless,
and they were all addressed in a manner that was not a personal attack 
then if that person
again raised the issues (the "constantly demonstrating" part) then I'd 
say that remark is
acceptable. It's basically telling the person that it's time to pack it 
in and move on.

   So let's say my premise is correct, that this person's serial 
cluelessness resulted in a
bunch of individual issues raised and addressed yet still repeated these 
clueless issues.
It would be A Bad Thing (tm), IMO, if the SAA stepped in and reprimanded 
the person who sent
an email that contained that sentence. If, on the other hand, this was 
the first attempt at
engaging then it's not right.

   Speech is too contextual for cut-and-dry rules, especially speech in 
email.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:05:47 -0400

Strong meaning a lot of effort, not a cursory attempt. There don’t need to be any constraints other than that any idea that is repeated is ignored or used to clarify the summary if there is a reason to do so. And anything that’s a non-falsifiable opinion is noted but not treated in the summary as if it contradicts a testable assertion. 

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 19:56, Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:55:12 -0700

> inflammatory than useful.

qed

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:30:50 +0200

Skickat från min iPhone

> 10 sep. 2019 kl. 01:27 skrev Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>:
> 
> 

Quite so. Well done & said.

> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:06:31 -0400

It might be more helpful to consider Keith's original point in terms of
agenda denial which is a tactic that is used to avoid discussion of topics
that a party knows they will lose if they get to the facts.

Tone policing is an agenda denial strategy. But so is jamming a
conversation with irrelevant and repetitive statements.

Tone policing is the specific strategy of saying that because something was
raised in the wrong way, it cannot ever be raised. So the canonical version
would be a tinpot dictatorship that suspends parliament with the intention
of provoking a riot it will use as pretext for seizing power.

Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of poisoning a
debate by being disruptive is much more common.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:53:45 -0400

Well said, Phillip. 

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 12:06, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> It might be more helpful to consider Keith's original point in terms of agenda denial which is a tactic that is used to avoid discussion of topics that a party knows they will lose if they get to the facts.
> 
> Tone policing is an agenda denial strategy. But so is jamming a conversation with irrelevant and repetitive statements.
> 
> Tone policing is the specific strategy of saying that because something was raised in the wrong way, it cannot ever be raised. So the canonical version would be a tinpot dictatorship that suspends parliament with the intention of provoking a riot it will use as pretext for seizing power. 
> 
> Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of poisoning a debate by being disruptive is much more common.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:57:21 -0400 (EDT)

> they will lose if they get to the facts.

You seem to be assigning a bad motive to anyone who wants to improve
the atmosphere for discussion within the IETF by stating "tone policing"
is only used as a way to do "agenda denial".

However, what we were discussing was the situation where hostile or rude
participation lead to people (especially newcomers) to avoid participation
alltogether. That would seem _more_ of an "agenda denial" item that the
one particular and very specific abuse point that you raise.

Furthermore, your issue which would be a moderator abusing their power
to suppress factual discussions on topics would be reasonably easy to
proof to the ombudspeople. One would expect from a WG chair that you
would be given a chance to refuse your email content without the - by
the moderator considered - unneccessarilly hostile tone. And again,
this did happen to me two weeks ago and while I did think my message
was fine, it was also very easy to just rewrite my message to be less
inflamatory and less hostile.

> Tone policing is an agenda denial strategy.

"could be abused for" would be a better phrasing than "is", unless you
would believe all of us who are asking for an improved atmosphere at
IETF discussions all have a hidden agenda. I don't think you actually
think that.

> But so is jamming a conversation with irrelevant and repetitive statements.

Which can also be resolved by messages from the WG chair to improve the
tone and/or moderation if it does not change, followed by a possible
appeal via the ombudspeople.

> Tone policing is the specific strategy of saying that because something was raised in the wrong way, it cannot ever be raised.

Not at all. It is a way of asking the participant to see if they can
rewrite their message so it contains the same valuable content without
the unneeded negative wordings that would have a negative impact on
the willingness of other people to remain in the disuccion (or in the
IETF completely).

Paul

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:07:22 -0400

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:33 PM Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I last saw something like that at the BIMI BOF in Prague at IETF104.  Not
> quite "the worst idea in the history of the IETF", but a very strong and
> emotional "this is a horribly bad idea and I strongly oppose the IETF doing
> any work in this area and I will fight you to the death and die on this
> hill".
>

I missed the BIMI BOF but that statement had me really thinking 'we should
do it!'. Nobody has ever told me something like that without them turning
out to be hilariously wrong.

So I found the spec:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bkl-bimi-overview/

It is a real pity that I was not there because this is precisely the
problem that I originally called the meeting that resulted in CABForum
being formed for. If anyone has IPR concerns, they will find prior art in
my book The DotCrime Manifesto (2008).

The IETF has in fact already published RFCs that do precisely this. See RFC
3709:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3709

OK, so DMARC is slightly different method of delivery but we have all the
technical stuff done modulo uninteresting arguments over encoding. The hard
part has always been to specify the validation processes. If you want to
put a brand on an email you are going to have to validate it and that means
you are going to either have to adopt the strategies we developed for
VeriSign Class 3 in the 1990s or re-learn them.

If people would like to do this, the way that was discussed at CABForum was
to engage the WIPO Trademark Registry established under the  Madrid
Protocol. So basically, you perform Extended Validation criteria as per
normal and then compare the mark with the registration and establish proof
of right.

The division of work on such a scheme would have to be IETF restricts
itself to the technology and leaves the certificate policy issues to
CABForum. Because that is the division we have established.

So yes, we could actually do the proposal but I don't think it is the best
way to go about the end goal because of the deployment trap. Email is a
vast infrastructure and it is really hard to get any traction there because
anything you do is diluted.

The application I am looking to apply this to is a condensation of an idea
from the APWG which was for a 'constrained browser' without javascript that
would only be used for security sensitive applications like accessing bank
web sites. So I took the idea further and reduced the browser to the
absolute bare minimum which is to present the user with a HTML form which
says:

"Sign the latest release [Yes][No]"
"Add T-Mobile as Bill Payment Recipient [Yes][No]"
"Do you want to transfer $10,000 to the Nigerian Prince [Yes][No]"

That is something that can be displayed on a phone or a watch.

This is one of the new applications the Mathematical Mesh supports.

The number of companies supporting the new application would be small but
it would establish a constituency of validated brands and of users.

The constituency formed by the Mesh Confirmation Protocol could then be
used to enable something interesting in the mail messaging space. But I
think we are still looking at something that would be separate from the
SMTP email infrastructure for high value communications such as those
inside enterprises.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:03:34 -0400

On 9/10/19 12:57 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:

>
>> Tone policing is the specific strategy of saying that because 
>> something was raised in the wrong way, it cannot ever be raised.
>

No, that's not what tone policing means.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:05:20 -0400

On 9/10/19 12:06 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of 
> poisoning a debate by being disruptive is much more common.

So is accusing well-intended people of bad intention.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:21:54 -0400

> So is accusing well-intended people of bad intention.
This is an example of tone-policing as a form of agenda denial.  Because Phil used the term “poisoning,” this gave Keith an opportunity to respond to what Phil had said as if it were an accusation, and not merely a factual observation.  And so now we are talking about Phil attacking Keith, instead of talking about how to have good discussions in the IETF.

:(

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:25:08 -0400

> and isn't deliberately trying to break the world!

I remember Mark and his strident communications style, but I never took 
offense at it even when I was a newcomer.   It was always clear to me 
that his primary concern was technical soundness.   He was 
uncompromising because he worked hard at this, and I suspect, also 
because he believed that technical soundness required that kind of 
dedication.

He had strong opinions but I personally never saw him as 
obstructionist.   (Others may remember him differently; I was never 
active for instance in trying to update IMAP, which was his baby.)

I believe Mark's contributions were immense and we are all still 
benefiting from them.   Not because his ideas were perfect, certainly 
not because his code was anywhere nearly perfect, not because his 
communications style was diplomatic, but because of his dedication to 
soundness and his willingness to work.

IMO we need people in IETF like Mark.    Perhaps not in communications 
style, but in work ethic and striving for excellence.   I'd hate to see 
contributors like him be discouraged because people insisted he be less 
than candid.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:26:06 -0400

On 9/10/19 2:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked] 
> This is an example of tone-policing as a form of agenda denial. 
>  Because Phil used the term “poisoning,” this gave Keith an 
> opportunity to respond to what Phil had said as if it were an 
> accusation, and not merely a factual observation.  And so now we are 
> talking about Phil attacking Keith, instead of talking about how to 
> have good discussions in the IETF.
>
> :(

Because citing examples of harmful communication cannot possibly be 
relevant to a discussion of how to have good discussions.

Keith

---

From: "Stan Kalisch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:50:03 -0400

> Because citing examples of harmful communication cannot possibly be relevant to a discussion of how to have good discussions.

Stripping this of its sarcasm, I think this is a salient point. Whatever side of the discussion you are on, the incredibly awkward, but essential de-facto datapoints for this discussion are examples of conduct of IETF participants.

Which may or may not create more datapoints, depending on your point of view, just by being discussed.

It seems to me that this is what is making this discussion so difficult.

Thanks,
Stan

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:05:22 -0700

On 9/10/19 9:57 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> It might be more helpful to consider Keith's original point in terms 
>> of agenda denial which is a tactic that is used to avoid discussion 
>> of topics that a party knows
>> they will lose if they get to the facts.
>

   Well we've had a few examples of it very recently that seem very close
to that so I think talking about it that way would be good.

   You seem to think that people who are against "tone policing" don't want
to improve the atmosphere for discussion. Not that I want to police your
tone, or ask you to rewrite your email, but it's illustrative of what's 
going
on here.

> the willingness of other people to remain in the disuccion (or in the

   But if we allow the recipient of a message (or possibly worse, an 
authority who
imagines how someone could possibly misconstrue a message) to be the 
determining factor
in whether the statement needs to be rewritten, or the speaker needs to 
stop speaking,
we will soon be in the land of agenda denial. We will end up with, as I 
noted earlier,
a Kafkaesque situation where people are told they violated some rule no 
one has ever
seen ("that which once was encouraged but now is not") created by a 
cabal of unknown
people (the leadership) that concerns vague things like "toxic" and 
"hostile" message
content.

   There's a rule of thumb I go by when considering creating rules and 
giving power
and that is do not assume the people given the power to enforce the 
rules will always
be people who you like or agree with or who will desire the same outcome 
as you.

   By its very nature, the IETF attracts "Type A" people who devote a 
lot of time
and energy into proposals and sometimes discussions will get heated. We 
should all just
calm down and be civil. "Type B" people can have good ideas too. Try not 
to ascribe bad
motives to people who don't agree with your proposal. But policing tone 
will become agenda
denial and we will have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

   regards,

   Dan.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:58:03 -0500

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:21:54PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Because Phil used the term “poisoning,” this gave Keith an opportunity
> to respond to what Phil had said as if it were an accusation, and not
> merely a factual observation.  And so now we are talking about Phil
> attacking Keith, instead of talking about how to have good discussions
> in the IETF.
> 
> :(

Dear all,

All of these threads are a DDoS on [email-masked] subscribers -- agenda
denial and then some.  There's no end in sight.

I have no idea what anyone's victory conditions might be that might
cause them to stop replying for now, much less long, to these threads.

Because the SAAs and leadership have been intimately involved in some of
the recent contentious threads, it's clear that they can't credibly use
their authority put an end to this mess.

Without victory conditions being clear and met, and without _consensus_,
the best we can do is agree to disagree for now and kick this can down
the road.

This is probably all ultimately still tied emotionally to the mess that
the SAAs created by their unequal (or unequal-seeming) "tone policing"
of leadership vs. non-leadership participants, plus the RSOC /
RFC-Editor debacle.

One thing that's clear now is that psychology needs to be taken into
account by the SAAs if we're going to have SAAs at all.

By admonishing Adam R. privately but Michael StJ.'s publicly after his
inflammatory response to Adam R.'s inflammatory post, the SAAs showed
that tone policing is difficult, and that publicly calling people out
often has the effect of making them more combative/defensive.  We
certainly saw RSOC be defensive before eventually issuing a mea culpa.

We did also see that a mea culpa can defuse these situations, as when
RSOC apologized for their failures in the RFC-Editor debacle.

Apologizing will often make the apologizer feel better too.  An apology
from the SAAs for their failures, even though they were trivial in
detail (by more severe in results), may yet prove helpful.

Now, if the SAAs can fail so dramatically, maybe, just maybe, tone
policing is a difficult thing to get right!

To be sure, I know "tone" when I see it -- usually even when I engage in
it or soon after.  But, too, we mustn't be overly sensitive to "tone",
because if the "tone" we get upset by is "debatably tone", then.. we're
in for a lively debate.  Insert the past three months of this list's
archives as evidence!

Perhaps there's only so much change in what is and isn't acceptable
tone that we can tolerate at once without devolving into a self-DDoS.

Or perhaps the only real issue is that asking to improve tone in the
middle of a months-long series of testy issues... is not conducive to
obtaining better tone.

It may be the case that in an already-acrimonious context, every
proposal that isn't utterly trivial suddenly becomes debatable and
endlessly-debated.  For example, the idea that RFC3005 authorizes or
demands that SAAs act to move threads from this list, may be obvious to
some, and perhaps only slightly irritating to others, but in this
context it's anything but obvious or slightly irritating.  The RFC3005
interpretation issue blew up all out of proportion.  In retrospect that
should have been obvious.

For now perhaps dialing down the "trigger sensitivity" and giving each
other a bit more credit, might well be the key to returning to more
civilized times.  Otherwise we're just retreading.

So consider stopping.  Just stop.  For a while, stop.  A long while.  A
few months maybe.  The world won't end.  We can return to these issues
with cooler emotions later.

Sincerely, with a heartfelt apology for the length of the above, but
hope that it might help,

Nico
--

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:23:31 -0400

> is only used as a way to do "agenda denial".

No, I am limiting the use of the term 'tone policing' to only apply it to
circumstances where the intention is malicious.

A request for civility is fine as long as it is not then weaponized to say,
'and since this issue was raised improperly, it can never be raised' or if
it is clearly being raised in bad faith. For example when a political
candidate who attacks their opponents by attaching epithets 'lying',
'sleepy', etc. then bemoans the uncivil treatment they receive.

The term 'tone policing' as I understand it is exclusively used to imply a
bad faith complaint of incivility or unprofessional behavior.

> one particular and very specific abuse point that you raise.

That is precisely the point I was making we should look beyond the surface
and look at what the effect of the intervention is.

What I see in many of the responses to Keith's original post is people
raising exactly that point that sometimes people are complaining about
incivility because it gets in the way of the discussion.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:39:56 -0400

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is an example of tone-policing as a form of agenda denial.  Because
> Phil used the term “poisoning,” this gave Keith an opportunity to respond
> to what Phil had said as if it were an accusation, and not merely a factual
> observation.  And so now we are talking about Phil attacking Keith, instead
> of talking about how to have good discussions in the IETF.
>

I was not directly responding to Keith's example. Rather, having been
forced to spend a horrific amount of time over the past 9 months performing
analyses of these techniques used to intentionally poison political
discourse, I was pointing out that the term 'tone policing' is part of a
wider set of strategies.

One of the other issues that I think a lot of people, if not most of us
need to pay attention to is not assuming that if someone disagrees with us,
it is because the other person is ignorant of the facts and if only they
had the same knowledge and experience as us, they would understand.

On two occasions today, I made a fairly extended argument citing specific
facts and experience, only for someone to respond with words to the effect
of 'you need to do more research'.

I will just point out that this approach shows a breathtaking degree of
arrogance. Particularly when I happen to mention that I literally wrote a
book on the topic in question.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:56:32 -0400

On 9/10/19 5:23 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> No, I am limiting the use of the term 'tone policing' to only apply it 
> to circumstances where the intention is malicious.
>
> A request for civility is fine as long as it is not then weaponized to 
> say, 'and since this issue was raised improperly, it can never be 
> raised' or if it is clearly being raised in bad faith. For example 
> when a political candidate who attacks their opponents by 
> attaching epithets 'lying', 'sleepy', etc. then bemoans the uncivil 
> treatment they receive.
>
> The term 'tone policing' as I understand it is exclusively used to 
> imply a bad faith complaint of incivility or unprofessional behavior.

I'm okay with requests for civility.   Civility is always appropriate.   
If someone is clearly being uncivil, sure, say something to them.

I am much less comfortable with "requests", from some appointed people 
or persons, that someone phrase their words differently than they did, 
for arbitrary reasons.   I believe that such pushback can cause harm 
(and has caused harm in IETF) even when done in good faith.

(For that matter, I presume that in most instances of "tone policing", 
whatever definition you choose, the policing person often believes they 
are acting in good faith.   So I'm not sure that "good faith" is a 
useful criterion for determining when such pushback is ok - it's as 
subjective as anything else.)

There are many factors that deter people from participation in IETF.   
To me it makes sense to look at all of those factors and try to measure 
them, and try to develop a strategy that encourages wider participation 
from the entire spectrum of technically qualified individuals, and to 
educate less qualified individuals.   What doesn't make sense to me is 
to presume that such deterrence is due to a single factor, or to only 
address a single factor, or to presume that there are groups of 
technically qualified individuals who should be deterred.

Keith

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:53:33 +1000

> that we can all live and learn, and to follow.

Yeah, there's plenty from around those years that I cringe when reading back over. Honestly I probably wouldn't have come to the IETF at all after that if it hadn't been for Pete Resnick at Inbox Love in 2014 (that was a weird conference) talking about how the IETF wasn't as bad as the reputation I'd heard - and that things COULD be achieved there still.

 I don't even mind arguing and having to defend technical decisions, but I had the impression back in 2014 that the IETF was 100% arguing and that no effective work could get done here - so had disengaged.

 Then Alexey Melnikov came to a CalConnect in 2016 and was welcoming about joining IETF, and so here I am!

Bron.