I've stayed out of this discussion mostly over the past one+ weeks (I'm loving the Gmail "Forums" category for automatically filing all these emails so they don't sit in my inbox). But, there is one point in Ben's email that I want to comment on below [MB].
Regards,
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dan,
Trying to focus on the topics that have not already been covered heavily...
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> On 8/14/20 10:30 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >
> > The question is, what to do?
>
[...]
>
> Fundamentally, we don't have a problem with language in RFCs so we don't
> need to "fix" that which is not broken. We might have a problem with abusive
> language on mailing lists (guilty as charged) but that's different and it is
> best solved differently.
I don't think that "language in RFCs" or "abusive language on mailing
lists" is what Christian was asking about. Rather, the departure of many
prominent IETF contributors from the membership list of ietf@xxxxxxxx has
[MB] So, I guess I don't quite know what you consider a "prominent" IETF contributor as I've only seen 5 or so folks publicly announce that they're signing off the list, although I might have missed a few. What I found quite ironic is that one such "prominent IETF contributor" that posted such is someone that used to make fun of how one of our invited plenary speakers spoke in the Bad Attitude jabber room (I don't know if that still exists because that was the one and only time I joined that room). And, it's also quite ironic that in a discussion about terminology and how we treat one another you've chosen a term that gives some members of the community a special standing above others. I'm guessing there's a lot of folks that have dropped off the list without feeling compelled to announce such to the community. You could have used many other adjectives - e.g., frequent, long time, etc.. It's not a good sign IMHO when someone in leadership is suggesting that there are community members whose opinions are more important than others. That makes me very uncomfortable if that's a factor you use in determining consensus.
[/MB]
placed us in a (or, perhaps, excacerbated an existing) situation where the
membership of what is nominally the "general IETF discussion list" is not
representative of the IETF community. As someone who is, at times, charged
with assessing IETF consensus, I feel that this calls into question the
utility of the ietf@xxxxxxxxx list for determining consensus. Personally, I
now have significant doubts that the results of discussion on ietf@xxxxxxxx
will reflect IETF consensus. If the general list isn't useful for
determining consensus, some re-thinking of its purpose and procedures is
likely in order, as Christian alludes to.
Thanks,
Ben
