Subject: Recent threads concerning sergeants-at-arms

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:51:21 -0400

Hi all,

I wanted to follow up on the recent threads concerning the sergeants-at-arms that stemmed from Matthew Miller’s message [1] about the RSOC’s request for SOW comments. For clarity, there were two RFC Editor-related messages sent on August 30 that were seeking community input: one from the RSOC Chair, Sarah Banks, requesting that input be sent to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> over a two-week period [2], and one from the IAB Chair, Ted Hardie, requesting that input be sent to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> [3]. The reply-to on Ted’s message was set to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>. Matthew’s message concerned the SOW input, and he requested that discussion of it occur on [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>, based on off-list feedback from Ted about where SOW input had been directed in the past and based on consultation with the other SAA.

As the IETF community discussed at the administrative plenary at IETF 105 [4], there is significant work for us to do as a community to meet the ideals set out in BCP 54. Some of that work relates directly to the sergeant-at-arms role: rotating the sergeants-at-arms, clarifying escalation procedures, and streamlining how we talk about conduct. Personally I have been busy on all of these fronts doing outreach to potential new sergeants, studying existing professional literature about managing codes of conduct in technical organizations, and researching how other organizations have successfully handled this set of issues. I expect to have some news to share with the community about some of this quite soon, and I expect to continue working with the sergeants, the IESG, and professional resources on the other pieces to get some proposals in shape for community comment. The feedback during the IETF 105 plenary was clear that people want to see a firmer commitment to building a respectful environment, and the IESG has agreed to make this a priority.

But all of this work will take time. In the interim, we will all continue to feel our way through in an extremely gray area where what seems like an obvious right answer to one person seems like an obvious wrong answer to another. During this interim period, a personal wish of mine would be to not have every message sent by the SAA challenged and adjudicated on [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>. I realize some would wish the SAA to remain mostly silent during this period. As with so many other IETF experiences, it is likely that no one will be completely satisfied. But everyone is capable of being thoughtful about how each of their contributions to this list can help to make the Internet work better and whether they absolutely must hit the send button on another email to thousands of people.  

Matthew made a suggestion to use a mailing list controlled by the RFC Series Editor for discussion about an RFC Series-related SOW, based on the charter of this list described in RFC 3005. It would be great if people decide to follow his suggestion, as some have already. If not, I am confident that the RSOC and the IAB will take into account what they read here between now and September 14 when the SOW comment period closes and I am optimistic that the discussion on rfc-interest, on this list, and everywhere in the IETF can remain respectful. My hope is that people will use the next 12 days to contemplate the email Sarah sent and provide their feedback.

Cheers,
Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Q3f9FnFcrWKRySD-DqQCgI6lbCw <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Q3f9FnFcrWKRySD-DqQCgI6lbCw>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3M3WswGZ_0zvYvDMO4f_J58qtQ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3M3WswGZ_0zvYvDMO4f_J58qtQ>
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M2d85XpOOR4tm78yGyh205iJWJc <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M2d85XpOOR4tm78yGyh205iJWJc>
[4] See slides 14 to 18 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ietf-sessa-all-slides-ietf-105-administrativeoperations-plenary <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ietf-sessa-all-slides-ietf-105-administrativeoperations-plenary>

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:28:02 +0900

Alissa Cooper wrote:

 > During this interim period, a personal wish of mine would be to
 > not have every message sent by the SAA challenged and adjudicated
 > on [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.

It sounds like you have authorized SAAs send messages, including
private ones with chilling effect, not supported by IETF consensus.

If not, can you clarify?

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:33:49 -0400

> On Sep 2, 2019, at 10:28 PM, Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 

Nope. The SAA are operating under RFC 3005.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:06:39 -0400

On 9/2/2019 9:51 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

Hi Alissa - I appreciate you have a particular point of view about what 
you think is appropriate discussion on the IETF mailing list, but I 
think you're missing the point that what's important is the topic and 
its important to more than RFC format geeks  ( :-) )that hang out on the 
rfc-interest mailing list.  I also think you're mis-reading 3005. I 
don't think we're quite ready to discuss the technical aspects of the 
RFC series - and that's the appropriate set of discussions for 
rfc-interest, not the philosophy of the oversight of the RFC series and 
process.

>
> Matthew made a suggestion to use a mailing list controlled by the RFC 
> Series Editor for discussion about an RFC Series-related SOW, based on 
> the charter of this list described in RFC 3005. 

As SAA, it's rare that such a posting would be considered just a 
suggestion.    I myself didn't actually take it as just a suggestion.  
Eliot beat me in providing pushback.

> It would be great if people decide to follow his suggestion, as some 
> have already. If not, I am confident that the RSOC and the IAB will 
> take into account what they read here between now and September 14 
> when the SOW comment period closes and I am optimistic that the 
> discussion on rfc-interest, on this list, and everywhere in the IETF 
> can remain respectful. My hope is that people will use the next 12 
> days to contemplate the email Sarah sent and provide their feedback.

Neither Matthew nor you appear to be reading the same things out of 3005 
as the rest of us - I'd be interested in how you interpret this topic in 
a manner to suggest that its an inappropriate topic for the IETF list.

> RFC3005: In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include:
>
>      - Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions
>      - Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work,
>        but do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue
>      - Discussion of IETF administrative policies
>      - Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings
>      - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are
>        sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
>
>     Inappropriate postings include:
>
>      - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
>      - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
>        activities, or technical concerns
>      - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
>      - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
>        sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

Later, Mike

>
> Cheers,
> Alissa Cooper
> IETF Chair
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Q3f9FnFcrWKRySD-DqQCgI6lbCw
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3M3WswGZ_0zvYvDMO4f_J58qtQ
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M2d85XpOOR4tm78yGyh205iJWJc
> [4] See slides 14 to 18 of 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ietf-sessa-all-slides-ietf-105-administrativeoperations-plenary

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 02:28:17 -0400

Reading the discussion of the SAA, I wonder if part of the confusion 
here is the difference between the SAA managing (and working to control 
and prevent) seriously inappropriate conduct as defined by 3005, and the 
general role of a lsit owner to keep the list on topic and ensure that 
discussions are moved to where they are most effective.

As a hypothetical, if instead of the SAA as SAA ssending the 
"suggestion", Alissa had sent a note calling attention to the fact that 
the underlying message had requested comments to rfc-interest, and asked 
if the discussion could be moved there, would that have been seen as 
less inappropriate?  Even if one then chose (as I expect folks would 
have) to suggest that such a move was the wrong answer?

I think it is important that we keep the SAA role clear, so that it 
stays effective.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:06:21 +0200

Hi Joel,

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 08:28, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reading the discussion of the SAA, I wonder if part of the confusion here is the difference between the SAA managing (and working to control and prevent) seriously inappropriate conduct as defined by 3005, and the general role of a list owner to keep the list on topic and ensure that discussions are moved to where they are most effective.

Yes.  There is a world of difference between the two.

> 
> As a hypothetical, if instead of the SAA as SAA ssending the "suggestion", Alissa had sent a note calling attention to the fact that the underlying message had requested comments to rfc-interest, and asked if the discussion could be moved there, would that have been seen as less inappropriate?  Even if one then chose (as I expect folks would have) to suggest that such a move was the wrong answer?
> 

Yes.  The SAA function is meant to be a big stick, and this matter doesn’t warrant any stick.  And while I still would have disagreed as to where the discussion belongs for reasons I’ve already stated, I would have kept it to myself.   But I viewed pulling out the big stick as… being heavy handed.   In addition, it was the 2nd SAA issue in recent times, which also motivated my message.

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:02:19 +0100

Hi Alissa,

I fully agree with your mail with two minor caveats. I hope
those may be useful input to IESG discussion on this, hence
this mail.

#1 I don't think continuing to discuss the SOW/RSE role on
the IETF list as well as or instead of the rfc-interest
list is at all unreasonable if that's what a poster wants
to do, despite us asking for discussion to move to the
rfc-interest list. For this one, I think the onus is on
whomever needs to be up to speed with that discussion
to monitor both and there are enough different opinions
on related topics that I can imagine someone having what
they consider a reasoned argument why moving discussion
to rfc-interest is wrong.

#2 I'd like to suggest a phrase you used is a bit too
broad. You said:

On 03/09/2019 02:51, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> a firmer commitment to building a respectful environment

I've two quibbles with how you expressed that.

I think we want an environment where we are all respectful
of the people participating (or not participating) in the
IETF, but we explicitly do not want participants to be
overly respectful of the (current) organisational structures,
nor of the fact that one us happens to be in a certain role
etc. That does differ from bring "professional" at least
as that term is understood by some reasonable people. How
to phrase that well is tricky but I'd say doable if we
somewhere explicitly note that the kind of openness we
aim for requires us to encourage criticism of the subsets
of us acting in leadership roles, and of the roles as well,
and that such criticism ought be actively encouraged, as
long as it's not personally disrespectful. And as a
corollary, as nomcom appointees we ought not take ourselves,
nor that we're acting in particular roles, too seriously:-)

Secondly, we also do not want IETF participants to be
shy criticising what they consider technically bad ideas.
That's an area where some of us go wrong when we step over
lines between criticism of ideas and get too close to being
critical of other IETF participants. (For example by
imputing motives, which can be done very politely and
tangentially but is nonetheless wrong.) I think there's
definitely room for improvement here, (myself included)
but I'm less sure how to ensure that improvement doesn't
also damage the culture of openly criticising ideas. So
yes, let's work on being better, but carefully, and taking
into account the subtle differences between the IETF and
a company, university, or other kinds of organisation.
(In some respects, I think we're much more like a largely
volunteer-driven amateur-sports organisation, which has
different needs, and dangers, compared to a regular
for-profit company or even a professional-sports setup.)

I guess we may agree that those quibbles need to be handled
in IESG discussion of this topic, but do think there's real
value in explicitly aiming at preserving one of what I think
is the best bits of IETF culture, being folks' willingness to
openly disagree. We absolutely need to be better at doing
that, (for example, avoiding endless repetition of well-worn
arguments that'll never be resolved;-) but we cannot stop
disagreeing or I think we're organisationally dead.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 20:40:15 +0900

> Nope. The SAA are operating under RFC 3005.

Hmmm, but a problem is that some SAAs wrongly interpret the rfc.

However, as I should not assume you are weasel wording, you should
be saying SAAs should operate under *THE* original, unaffected by
recent arguments, intention of the rfc repeatedly expressed by Bob
Hinden.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:31:57 -0700

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 6:52 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But all of this work will take time. In the interim, we will all continue
> to feel our way through in an extremely gray area where what seems like an
> obvious right answer to one person seems like an obvious wrong answer to
> another. During this interim period, a personal wish of mine would be to
> not have every message sent by the SAA challenged and adjudicated on
> [email-masked].
>

I wanted to pull out and amplify this point.

We have a system which incorporates a lot of points of escalation for bad
decisions (appeals, the main ietf list, plenaries, recalls), and many of
those mechanisms have low thresholds for activation. If every action by
leadership (and for the sake of this discussion I'm including the SAA in
leadership) is escalated, the system will quickly grind to a halt. What
keeps it running even as smoothly as it does is that people mostly adhere
to the norm of escalating only when really necessary.

-Ekr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:49:47 -0400

On 9/3/19 9:31 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 6:52 PM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     But all of this work will take time. In the interim, we will all
>     continue to feel our way through in an extremely gray area where
>     what seems like an obvious right answer to one person seems like
>     an obvious wrong answer to another. During this interim period, a
>     personal wish of mine would be to not have every message sent by
>     the SAA challenged and adjudicated on [email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>.
>
>
> We have a system which incorporates a lot of points of escalation for 
> bad decisions (appeals, the main ietf list, plenaries, recalls), and 
> many of those mechanisms have low thresholds for activation. If every 
> action by leadership (and for the sake of this discussion I'm 
> including the SAA in leadership) is escalated, the system will quickly 
> grind to a halt. What keeps it running even as smoothly as it does is 
> that people mostly adhere to the norm of escalating only when really 
> necessary.

All true.  But the SAA is a fairly unique threat.   They're not only 
empowered to shut people down, they also operate without transparency or 
real accountability.  When the SAA is found to have grossly exceeded 
their authority under 3005 (which does appear to have been the case), 
and the IETF leadership doesn't immediately address this problem, it 
undermines trust in the organization and the leadership.

And all of this is taking place in the broader context of an effort, 
apparently endorsed by some of the leadership, to promote censorship of 
IETF input for arbitrary reasons.

To say this is chilling is a tremendous understatement.

I am looking for some sign that leadership takes these problems 
seriously and will rectify them.   So far what I see looks like efforts 
to sweep them under a rug.

Keith

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 05:32:56 +0900

Eric Rescorla wrote:

> decisions (appeals, the main ietf list, plenaries, recalls),

Are you saying escalation can not be done against good decisions?

 > and many of
> leadership) is escalated, the system will quickly grind to a halt.

It merely means that critical decisions, such as restriction of posting,
should be decided very rarely with high thresholds.

> What

Are you saying people sentenced to death should rarely appeal because
most judges and juries make good decisions?

If not, it merely means death sentence should be issued only when
really necessary.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:44:45 +0000

> shy criticising what they consider technically bad ideas.

Perhaps "a polite and considerate environment," is a more accurate
description of the intention.  Respect is different and can not be
commanded nor is it automatic, it must be earned.  IMO.

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:15:53 -0700

> commanded nor is it automatic, it must be earned.  IMO.

How much respect should BGP accord?

thanks,
Rob

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:26:18 -0400

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:28:17AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Reading the discussion of the SAA, I wonder if part of the confusion here is
> the difference between the SAA managing (and working to control and prevent)
> seriously inappropriate conduct as defined by 3005, and the general role of
> a lsit owner to keep the list on topic and ensure that discussions are moved
> to where they are most effective.
> 
> As a hypothetical, if instead of the SAA as SAA ssending the "suggestion",
> Alissa had sent a note calling attention to the fact that the underlying
> message had requested comments to rfc-interest, and asked if the discussion
> could be moved there, would that have been seen as less inappropriate?  Even
> if one then chose (as I expect folks would have) to suggest that such a move
> was the wrong answer?

This is my memory of the division of labor used when I served as SAA
many years ago.  The serving IETF chair would make suggestions to try
to redirect move discussions to other mailing lists.  It would be
EXTREMELY rare that the SAA "big stick" of the form, "sit down, shut
up, or I'll cut off your posting privileges" would be used to manage
where a discussion would take place.

I think I can remember a single time when that might have been taken
place, and in that time, the person in question was engaging in many
other behaviors which were much more blatently deserving of SAA
attention, and the posting restriction was done after much
provocation, and not just because a discussion was taking on the wrong
list by the ITEF chair's lights.

						- Ted

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:43:53 -0400

> commanded nor is it automatic, it must be earned.  IMO.

I respectfully disagree.

Respect is an act of will.   You can respect a fellow IETF participant 
just for participating or just for having their own perspective.   True, 
they can earn more respect by showing that they're valuable in any way; 
or they can earn less respect by showing that they're destructive, 
incompetent, or whatever.   You can strongly disagree with their goals 
or solutions, but you can still find some reason to respect that 
person.   If you don't respect an IETF participant, it's pretty hard to 
find common ground with them or work with them.   And in a 
consensus-based organization that's a serious handicap.  So IMO respect 
is essential.

Politeness, on the other hand, consists of arbitrary and often 
conflicting social conditions.   It's possible to be both perfectly 
polite and scathingly disrespectful at the same time. People in my part 
of the US have made a fine art of that, and I'm sure that similar things 
happen in other cultures.

Of course, being polite - attempting to follow the social conventions of 
someone you're working with, even if it's unfamiliar - can be a sign of 
respect.   But the respect is what is essential; finding a way to convey 
that respect in a way that doesn't interfere with work can be discovered.

Social conventions are not always helpful in technical work. For 
instance, it's important for IETF participants to be able to express 
disagreement with one another on technical issues.   It's important that 
we be able to interact with one another as peers, without regard to 
status.   Doing so may seem impolite to people who are otherwise 
accustomed.   But it should never be done without respect.

Ideally, IETF would establish its own well-defined social conventions, 
because normal social conventions are so varied, and sometimes 
counterproductive to IETF's work.

Keith

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 00:02:09 +0100

Hiya,

>> commanded nor is it automatic, it must be earned.  IMO.

Heh - I'm gonna both agree and disagree:-)

...
> conflicting social conditions.Â Â  It's possible to be both perfectly
> polite and scathingly disrespectful at the same time. 

Right. I agree that being polite is not really a goal, but rather
being respectful of people as people, (not of people as current
role-players nor of the current organisational structure). Turns
out that being polite (or, even better, nice, friendly) almost
all the time is a fairly good plan for demonstrating respect for
people though.

As it happens, in my locale, swearing is considered punctuation,
so actually being nice while at the same time appearing polite to
people from certain other locales can be tricky:-)

> Ideally, IETF would establish its own well-defined social conventions,

Yeah, there I totally disagree. That seems fantastical nonsense.
The IETF is neither a cult nor a centuries old tradition... yet;-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:13:46 -0400

> all the time is a fairly good plan for demonstrating respect for
The big problem I have with the word "polite" as applied to IETF work is 
that so many social conventions (which I've already referred to) are 
counterproductive to IETF's work, and I'd argue, to technical work in 
general.
> people from certain other locales can be tricky:-)

Well, bless your heart.   :)

Where I'm from, that can mean anything from a genuine expression of 
respect, care, and/or concern, to a withering insult, and sometimes 
multiple points on that spectrum.   (In this case, though, it's just the 
former.)

But having grown up in such a world has made me me realize just how 
shallow, and even harmful, politeness can be.

> The IETF is neither a cult nor a centuries old tradition... yet;-)
It might be as simple as making it clear that we're all peers here (at 
least for the purpose of technical discussion) and that it's not 
disrespectful to disagree.    I haven't seen the need for a secret 
handshake or initiation ritual.

But I haven't thought of a better way to get past social conventions 
that are counterproductive, than to say IETF should have its own 
culture, for good and valid reasons.

Keith

p.s. out of respect, I'd punctuate my remarks to you in an Irish manner 
if I could -- but I expect I'd fail miserably at it.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 00:24:46 +0100

Hiya,

> culture, for good and valid reasons.

Recognising the inevitability of your, my, and everyone's
imperfection and working around that as best we can seems
to me a better plan than yet another utopia.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:30:58 -0400

> to me a better plan than yet another utopia.

I certainly agree with the need to recognize, accept, and work around 
all of our imperfections as best we can.

Keith

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:36:26 -0400

> all of our imperfections as best we can.
Does not Postel's law pretty much sum things up: "Be conservative in 
what you send, be liberal in what you accept?"

Seems like particularly appropriate advice, given the venue.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:45:20 -0400

> what you send, be liberal in what you accept?"
Perhaps.  Though in both human conversation and protocol implementation, 
it's pretty easy to interpret that in unhelpful ways.

Keith

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 21:20:33 -0400

Hi Joel,

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:28 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reading the discussion of the SAA, I wonder if part of the confusion here is the difference between the SAA managing (and working to control and prevent) seriously inappropriate conduct as defined by 3005, and the general role of a lsit owner to keep the list on topic and ensure that discussions are moved to where they are most effective.
> 
> I think it is important that we keep the SAA role clear, so that it stays effective.

Fully agree. Creating more clarity about what is currently implicit when I and the SAA communicate with people about conduct on the list is definitely an area for improvement.

I will note, though, that from where I sit, delegation is critical. It shouldn’t be the case that an email has to come from me in order for it to be interpreted properly when the SAA are empowered by RFC 3005 to convey the same message. Otherwise much of the rationale for having the SAA would be lost.

Best,
Alissa

>> Hi Alissa - I appreciate you have a particular point of view about what you think is appropriate discussion on the IETF mailing list, but I think you're missing the point that what's important is the topic and its important to more than RFC format geeks  ( :-) )that hang out on the rfc-interest mailing list.  I also think you're mis-reading 3005. I don't think we're quite ready to discuss the technical aspects of the RFC series - and that's the appropriate set of discussions for rfc-interest, not the philosophy of the oversight of the RFC series and process.
>>> 
>>> Matthew made a suggestion to use a mailing list controlled by the RFC Series Editor for discussion about an RFC Series-related SOW, based on the charter of this list described in RFC 3005. 
>> As SAA, it's rare that such a posting would be considered just a suggestion.    I myself didn't actually take it as just a suggestion.  Eliot beat me in providing pushback.
>>> It would be great if people decide to follow his suggestion, as some have already. If not, I am confident that the RSOC and the IAB will take into account what they read here between now and September 14 when the SOW comment period closes and I am optimistic that the discussion on rfc-interest, on this list, and everywhere in the IETF can remain respectful. My hope is that people will use the next 12 days to contemplate the email Sarah sent and provide their feedback.
>> Neither Matthew nor you appear to be reading the same things out of 3005 as the rest of us - I'd be interested in how you interpret this topic in a manner to suggest that its an inappropriate topic for the IETF list.
>>> [4] See slides 14 to 18 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ietf-sessa-all-slides-ietf-105-administrativeoperations-plenary 
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 21:24:26 -0400

Hi Stephen,

I believe that the notion that we must choose between an environment where we can disagree — about anything that is in scope for IETF discussion — and an environment in which every person is treated with dignity, decency, and respect (to quote BCP 54) is a false choice.

Best,
Alissa

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:20:40 +0100

Hiya,

On 07/09/2019 02:24, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> I believe that the notion that we must choose between an environment
> where we can disagree â€” about anything that is in scope for IETF
> discussion â€” and an environment in which every person is treated
> with dignity, decency, and respect (to quote BCP 54) is a false
> choice.

I fully agree and didn't mean to imply those were mutually
exclusive - they are not. Maybe it'll help if I try phrase
my concerns differently.

I maintain that we need to be very careful in how we try get
to a place where we bother respect one another as people and
where we feel free to question anything relevant. It'd be easy
enough to end up putting too much emphasis on one and not the
other. While historically we've not sufficiently emphasised
being respectful, it is also possible that efforts to encourage
better behaviour could accidentally stymie an environment where
we have a goal that anyone can and will question anything
relevant.

I do want an outcome where people are commonly more respectful
of one another, but don't really want people to think they
need be respectful of other people's positions - regardless of
whether that position is based on one's employer or of having
been selected for something by nomcom. And I do see that as
a danger that (maybe inherently?) accompanies efforts to get
us to behave better.

Lastly I think the fact that we're a volunteer-driven body
without members also has an impact in that we cannot as
easily punish whatever one might consider bad behaviour as
is possible in a company or membership organisation. I think
our efforts to encourage better behaviour need to take that
into account. To some extent, with our setup we need to be
able to live with rougher-edges in debate as anyone can turn
up. And that "anyone can turn up" is a strength that I think
we all agree we don't want to lose.

Cheers,
S.

> Best, Alissa
>> I fully agree with your mail with two minor caveats. I hope those
>> may be useful input to IESG discussion on this, hence this mail.
>> 
>> #1 I don't think continuing to discuss the SOW/RSE role on the IETF
>> list as well as or instead of the rfc-interest list is at all
>> unreasonable if that's what a poster wants to do, despite us asking
>> for discussion to move to the rfc-interest list. For this one, I
>> think the onus is on whomever needs to be up to speed with that
>> discussion to monitor both and there are enough different opinions 
>> on related topics that I can imagine someone having what they
>> consider a reasoned argument why moving discussion to rfc-interest
>> is wrong.
>> 
>> #2 I'd like to suggest a phrase you used is a bit too broad. You
>> said:
>> 
>> I think we want an environment where we are all respectful of the
>> people participating (or not participating) in the IETF, but we
>> explicitly do not want participants to be overly respectful of the
>> (current) organisational structures, nor of the fact that one us
>> happens to be in a certain role etc. That does differ from bring
>> "professional" at least as that term is understood by some
>> reasonable people. How to phrase that well is tricky but I'd say
>> doable if we somewhere explicitly note that the kind of openness
>> we aim for requires us to encourage criticism of the subsets of us
>> acting in leadership roles, and of the roles as well, and that such
>> criticism ought be actively encouraged, as long as it's not
>> personally disrespectful. And as a corollary, as nomcom appointees
>> we ought not take ourselves, nor that we're acting in particular
>> roles, too seriously:-)
>> 
>> Secondly, we also do not want IETF participants to be shy
>> criticising what they consider technically bad ideas. That's an
>> area where some of us go wrong when we step over lines between
>> criticism of ideas and get too close to being critical of other
>> IETF participants. (For example by imputing motives, which can be
>> done very politely and tangentially but is nonetheless wrong.) I
>> think there's definitely room for improvement here, (myself
>> included) but I'm less sure how to ensure that improvement doesn't 
>> also damage the culture of openly criticising ideas. So yes, let's
>> work on being better, but carefully, and taking into account the
>> subtle differences between the IETF and a company, university, or
>> other kinds of organisation. (In some respects, I think we're much
>> more like a largely volunteer-driven amateur-sports organisation,
>> which has different needs, and dangers, compared to a regular 
>> I guess we may agree that those quibbles need to be handled in IESG
>> discussion of this topic, but do think there's real value in
>> explicitly aiming at preserving one of what I think is the best
>> bits of IETF culture, being folks' willingness to openly disagree.
>> We absolutely need to be better at doing that, (for example,
>> avoiding endless repetition of well-worn arguments that'll never be
>> resolved;-) but we cannot stop disagreeing or I think we're
>> organisationally dead.
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
> 
>

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 10:47:21 -0400 (EDT)

> a danger that (maybe inherently?) accompanies efforts to get

We do have the ombudspeople in case that would happen, but I
think it is very clear right now that it is the tone of the
communications far more than the technical content.

> is possible in a company or membership organisation.

I would think it is the other way, it is easier for us since most of the
work happens on the lists, and people who keep offending the policies can
be moderated so that they can fix their tone and stay on the technical
content of their message. For in person meetings, I guess the WG chairs
have the means to warn people about their verbal contributions and in
a worse case take the mic away from repeat offenders?

And I'm speaking as one who for the first time ever last week had one
of my own postings being rejected by the moderator who requested I
rephrase it a bit to be less confrontational. While I might think that
was unneccessary, I can't really disagree with improving the tone of my
message in an attempt to create a friendlier community online.

Paul

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 11:53:29 -0400

On 9/7/19 10:47 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

> content of their message.

I maintain my position that "tone" is entirely subjective.   For this 
reason it is easy to criticize "tone" as a way of avoiding criticizing 
technical content, and distracting from the technical content.   
Criticizing "tone" is itself a kind of personal attack, and should not 
IMO be permitted.

Keith

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 15:31:08 -0400

>>> <snip>
>>> happens to be in a certain role etc.

I've come to really dislike the word "respectful" in any of our context 
as it by definition implies both offering respect and deference.    
Respect is so culturally circumscribed as to make figuring out when 
you're offering enough respect in a given circumstance difficult.  
Deference quickly becomes expected based on role rather than good 
technical arguments.  It tends to impose a hierarchy where there should 
be none.

> /adjective/
> adjective: *respectful*
> feeling or showing deference and respect.

> Noun: Respect: due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or 
> traditions of others.

Very hard to make an objective evaluation of respect, let alone a 
subjective one.    Becomes even harder when cultural traditions and 
structures come head to head with IETF traditions and structures.

(As a really bad example that hasn't hit us yet - the Billy Graham rule).

>>> That does differ from bring

Professional has its own problems in that it brings us back to 
respectful and courteous.   Courteous starts getting us to where we want 
to be.:

> /adjective/
> adjective: *courteous*
> polite, respectful, or considerate in manner.

Somewhat circular, but introduces "considerate":

> adjective: *considerate*
> careful not to cause inconvenience or hurt to others.

And that's a bit better as it's easier to understand "inconsiderate" 
behavior or speech is that which inconveniences or hurts others.  But 
still, that's not quite modeled correctly.

What I think we want is "careful not to cause unnecessary inconvenience 
or hurt to others", as there will be times that either or both is 
required to advance the IETF, or the topic or the IETF culture in a 
meaningful manner.  I use "hurt" here in the most general sense of hurt 
feelings, reputational harm (e.g. identifying a malicious falsehood, 
play for pay, hits to status etc) and not any form of physical harm.

Call it "consideration informed by necessity".

>>> done very politely and tangentially but is nonetheless wrong.)

In the technical discussions, imputing motives is almost always 
"inconsiderate" :-) e.g. wrong.  But even then hauling out the submarine 
patent and asking someone to explain their motivation for including 
something in that patent in the discussion without telling people 
about... pretty much spot on.   There are other examples.  Sometimes, if 
you don't understand the behavior, the right answer is to ask for an 
explanation and try and relate to observed facts.  I think its probably 
ok to point out any variance between said explanation and said facts.

>>> I

We are in no way a regular, organized organization.  The folk in 
leadership roles are working with delegations from the community of 
certain privileges and authorities, and that's true from the chairs down 
to the various WG chairs and editors.  That probably creates some 
creative dissonance between folks used to being able to order minions 
about in their day jobs and those trying to herd cats at the IETF 
sometimes forgetting and using their day-job approaches instead.   We 
probably collectively have an ego quotient substantially higher than the 
average and that will lead to a bit more ... noise? ... static? ... in 
any given discussion than might be seen in a corporate or more organized 
organization. I personally think it's part of the strength - even if 
sometimes I lose the arguments.

I mostly agree with what you're saying - I really just want to try to 
eliminate a bit more of the subjectivity that seems to be swirling 
around the various meanings of "professional", "respectful", "dignity" 
and "decency".

Later, Mike

> /noun/
> noun: *dignity*
> the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

> noun: *decency*
> behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or 
> respectability.
> the requirements of accepted or respectable behavior

>>> <snip>

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:53:45 +0900

Michael StJohns wrote:

> as it by definition implies both offering respect and deference. Respect 
> is so culturally circumscribed as to make figuring out when you're 
> offering enough respect in a given circumstance difficult.

As what essentially important is "respect" and IETF has
established ways to detect lack of it, one of which is
not reading the draft, there is no point to discuss
uselessness of poor alternatives.

					Masataka Ohta

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 08:15:58 +1000

> Criticizing "tone" is itself a kind of personal attack, and should not

It cuts both ways. Tone is entirely about the point where two apes
interact, so it is always 'personal'. What we're calling 'tone' is
metadata, its use in conversation is to affect the listener's emotional
state. It can be just as effective in distracting from the guts of the
conversation as criticism.

Asking every recipient to modify their human/emotional response to a
message's structure/terseness/choice of words/idioms/etc. seems much less
effective than asking the one sender to be conscious of it when writing.
Best when they both happen, together, of course. (It's easier to read in
good faith if you have a sense that the writer wrote in good faith.)

A thought I try to think before hitting send is: is this valuable enough
that it's worth rephrasing?

None of this is about policing or enforcement, mind. I don't even want to
think about that until we understand what it is that would be being
enforced.

Cheers,
Matthew Kerwin

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 20:09:33 -0700

Hi Alissa,

> I believe that the notion that we must choose between an environment where we can disagree — about anything that is in scope for IETF discussion — and an environment in which every person is treate…

   Usually when people construct this "false choice" construct it 
involves a straw man and
yours does not fail in that respect.

   But assuming that you really believe that we seek "an environment in 
which every person is
treated with dignity, decency, and respect" then let me say that in 
practice this is the
thing that is a fail.

   We had a note on this list that treated people who were white, male, 
and not young with
disdain and suggesting they should be replaced due to their skin color, 
gender, and age (it
also alluded to some language that bordered on being trans-phobic). The 
SAA didn't have a
problem with that statement and chose not to comment on it ("it was not 
actionable") because
it was, to quote, merely "misguided".

   So maybe you and the SAA should cut back on your attempts to 
"communicate with people about
conduct on the list [that] is definitely an area for improvement" 
because I don't think you
really understand what that is. And furthermore since a single post 
cannot represent, as
RFC 3005 states, "a pattern of abuse" any SAA emails telling people 
their single post is
inappropriate is, itself, not really appropriate.

   Be better.

   Dan.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:50:44 -0400

On 9/7/19 11:09 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:

> disdain and suggesting they should be replaced due to their skin 
> color, gender, and age (it
> also alluded to some language that bordered on being trans-phobic). 
> The SAA didn't have a
> problem with that statement and chose not to comment on it ("it was 
> not actionable") because

Without trying to nail down exactly what kind(s) of prejudice has been 
exhibited, it does seem clear that in certain circles there is an idea 
that "/those/ people" (i.e. some identified group) are "/the/ problem".

Some things I've found in my experience in IETF are that (a) building 
consensus requires looking for common ground between oneself and others 
with different points of view; and (b) an assumption that "/those/ 
people" (for ANY group) are inherently wrong or misguided, is a huge 
handicap when looking for common ground.

I also think that when some people take it upon themselves to find fault 
with others, or feel a sense of entitlement to do so, this is poisonous 
to consensus-building, no matter who the fault-finding people are.

I do want to acknowledge (again) that IETF culture can be hostile to 
newcomers.  To me it's also clear that IETF culture can be hostile to 
longtime participants.   This seems to me to be potential common ground 
that could be investigated when exploring how to improve IETF culture.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:52:36 -0400

On 9/7/19 6:15 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:

>
> On Sun., 8 Sep. 2019, 01:55 Keith Moore, <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> metadata, its use in conversation is to affect the listener's 
> emotional state. It can be just as effective in distracting from the 
> guts of the conversation as criticism.

Tone is not "metadata", at least as I've ever seen the term used.   
"Tone" is either deliberately a layer of the actual content of 
communications (if intended by the sender), or interpretation by a 
reader that is not the literal meaning of the words, and may not have 
been intended by the sender.   The latter is inherently subjective.   
The same words are not interpreted in the same way by every reader, and 
different readers can sometimes interpret the same phrase in 
diametrically opposite ways.

> message's structure/terseness/choice of words/idioms/etc. seems much 
> less effective than asking the one sender to be conscious of it when 
> writing. Best when they both happen, together, of course. (It's easier 
> to read in good faith if you have a sense that the writer wrote in 
> good faith.)

I'm surprised that you and others seem to think it is easy for a sender 
to anticipate how their message will be read.

Last I knew, the IETF list had tens of thousands of recipients. 
(Granted, that was a long time ago, so my information may be 
outdated.)   Different readers will naturally react to the same message 
in different ways.  Asking every sender to anticipate the spectrum of 
reactions from every recipient and write their message to avoid all 
potential of adversely affecting the listeners' emotional states, seems 
much less effective than expecting recipients to consider that writers 
who come from a wide spectrum of backgrounds are going to think and 
speak differently from one another.

As you point out, these are not mutually exclusive.   There is a need 
for due care on the part of both the author and the readers.   But it's 
not like there's some simple set of rules that an author can follow to 
avoid creating distracting emotional states on a reader's part.

For example, you cited "terseness".   An author may deliberately be 
terse because the author believes that readers are more likely to read 
and understand a brief message than a lengthy one.   Or maybe an author 
will compose a terse reply to acknowledge having read a message, but 
feel like it's not appropriate or wise to burden the list with a lengthy 
reply.   Maybe that author feels like it's a pointless argument, or that 
it's been gone over many times with no new conclusion or understanding.  
A different author, or the same author in a different circumstance, may 
judge it more effective to go into detail.

One reader may interpret a terse message as an insult, especially if the 
reader sees that message as being directed at them and expected to have 
a conversation on the topic.   Another reader may be grateful that the 
message was easy to read or that a lengthy conversation didn't ensue.

There probably are concrete writing suggestions that could be made that 
would be helpful.  But "tone" means whatever a reader wants it to mean, 
or is predisposed to think it means (deliberately or not), based on that 
reader's culture, education, conditioning, and experiences.   The same 
is true for "professional", "polite", and any of several other vague 
descriptions.

A big concern I have is with the idea that it's the sender's fault if 
the sender accidentally pushed some reader's buttons. While there are 
some buttons that are widely shared among humans, there are many that 
are not.

Add to this the fact that criticizing people's "tone" is a very common 
way of attacking people and/or ideas for political gain. That makes 
vague demands about "tone" extremely dangerous.

Finally, when a small number of appointed individuals take on the role 
of deciding whose "tone" is "appropriate", with no transparency or 
community oversight, it creates a very dangerous locus of political 
control over the organization - even if those individuals never actually 
silence people because of their perceived "tone".   Of course, when 
those same individuals are empowered to silence contributors because of 
their "tone", any pushback from those individuals carries with it an 
implied threat whether or not this is intended.   So not only do I think 
"tone policing" is inappropriate for IETF, I think it's doubly 
inappropriate if the SAAs take on that job.

> A thought I try to think before hitting send is: is this valuable 
> enough that it's worth rephrasing?

The normal process of developing ideas on a mailing list is to 
repeatedly rephrase until there's an improvement in agreement, or at 
least improved understanding of the differences, or until it appears 
that no further good can be accomplished.   The value to any recipient 
is also subjective, and a recipient's interpretation may say more about 
the recipient than about the sender.

But sure, at any point in a conversation a sender might do well to ask 
"is this particular message adding value?"   Different people might 
answer in different ways.

> None of this is about policing or enforcement, mind. I don't even want 
> to think about that until we understand what it is that would be being 
> enforced.

The mere hint of a threat of policing or enforcement, of something that 
is completely subjective, is frightening.

Keith

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:59:35 +1000

Hi,

First off I want to say that I know you don't know me from a bar of soap,
so thank you for taking the time to reply thoughtfully and earnestly.
I'll cut out the bits that I don't think I can build on.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 02:54, Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> I'm surprised that you and others seem to think it is
> easy for a sender to anticipate how their message will be read.
>
> (Granted, that was a long time ago, so my information may be outdated.)
> Different readers will naturally react to the same message in different
> ways.  Asking every sender to anticipate the spectrum of reactions from
> every recipient and write their message to avoid all potential of
> adversely affecting the listeners' emotional states, seems much less
> effective than expecting recipients to consider that writers who come
> from a wide spectrum of backgrounds are going to think and speak
> differently from one another.

I think I might have a problem talking about things on the
idealism-pragmatism spectrum -- my daughter always complains that I
expect perfection from her when I ask for small improvements.  On one
hand, if anticipating reactions was easy then we wouldn't have a
problem; set the bar, and swing the ban-hammer when the bar isn't
reached.  But on the other hand, I'm not asking anyone to anticipate
responses, I'm asking everyone to be conscious that messages will have
a personal/human/subjective response that won't always be based on the
actual meaning of the words.

That could mean: try to scan the message with fresh eyes (easy, I know),
see if there's anything that would be easy to interpret another way.
It could also mean: be prepared to receive a response that gives subtext
(real or imagined) more emphasis than it deserves, and accept that there
was a communication hiccup, and try to work over or around it.  It could
mean other things, too.

> avoid creating distracting emotional states on a reader's part.

No, definitely not.  Absolutely agree.  And trying to make, let alone
enforce, rules to that effect is... a bad idea.  I think building a
common vocabulary and a way to discuss these issues, and a way for the
community to realise its expectations, is a much more worthwhile effort.

> feel like it's not appropriate or wise to burden the list with a
> lengthy reply.   Maybe that author feels like it's a pointless
> argument, or that it's been gone over many times with no new conclusion
> or understanding.  A different author, or the same author in a
> different circumstance, may judge it more effective to go into detail.
>
> One reader may interpret a terse message as an insult, especially if
> the reader sees that message as being directed at them and expected to
> have a conversation on the topic.   Another reader may be grateful that
> the message was easy to read or that a lengthy conversation didn't
> ensue.

It's worth pointing out, I chose "terseness" over brevity or conciseness
specifically because 'terse' isn't intrinsically negative, but is very
often taken that way.  Being abrupt isn't the same thing as being
efficient, but the difference is pretty hard to pin down.

But, yes, "length of message" is not a good heuristic.

> or is predisposed to think it means (deliberately or not), based on
> that reader's culture, education, conditioning, and experiences.
> The same is true for "professional", "polite", and any of several other
> vague descriptions.

We pay lawyers to deal with legal stuff; we have plenty of technical
people to deal with technical stuff.  I wonder if we should hire someone
from the humanities to help provide guidance and advice on stuff that
involves humans.

> the sender accidentally pushed some reader's buttons.   While there
> are some buttons that are widely shared among humans, there are many
> that are not.

Yes, although my largest concern in that regard is the word "fault".
I don't know how to articulate it well, but attributing fault and
blaming someone and punishing someone all seem like... the extreme end
of a spectrum that we, hopefully, hardly ever need wander down.

Although I acknowledge that the thing that set all this off was just
that.  I hope everyone accepts that that was a mistake.

(Sorry for using "that" too much.)

> vague demands about "tone" extremely dangerous.

That's true, but using tone (being rude/aggressive, making people feel
unsafe or, at least, unwelcome) is also a very common way of doing it.
It's also much older, more established, and I guess* possibly harder to
detect or recognise (or dislodge) in some situations because of that
familiarity/inertia/whatever.  I know my personal bias is to lean more
heavily in one direction when contention arises, but I also recognise it
is my personal bias.

* I Am Not A Humanities

> control over the organization - even if those individuals never
> actually silence people because of their perceived "tone".

Yes.  That is bad.

> Of course, when those same individuals are empowered to silence
> contributors because of their "tone", any pushback from those
> individuals carries with it an implied threat whether or not this is
> intended.

Yes.  That is worse.

> So not only do I think "tone policing" is inappropriate for IETF, I
> think it's doubly inappropriate if the SAAs take on that job.

I think the community should have a mechanism for establishing and
evolving standards of interaction and behaviour, but I don't think
there should be a locus, as you put it, of power.  Jury over judge.

That's why I think it's valuable to discuss the topic, so we can
build a common language and gain an understanding of individuals' and
the general community's position.  But not so we can write a law.

> is completely subjective, is frightening.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/