Hi Mary, On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 04:15:20PM -0500, Mary B wrote: > 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]. And rightfully so... > > 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. You're quite right that "prominent" is poorly chosen; my apologies and thank you for noting it. I was attempting to use it as a shorthand to convey two parallel concerns: - if the people who think that their leaving is noteworthy are leaving, who else is leaving for the same reasons but not bothering to make an announcement? - if the experts on a given topic (the "people who wrote the book", if you will forgive the expression) are not in the room, how do we know that the right people have looked at a given topic/issue/question to ensure that the details of that topic have been fully considered? I do recognize that this last point bears significant similarity to your comment about "community members whose opinions are more important than others", but in this case I think my concerns can be characterized more as regarding the breadth of expertise available rather than giving particular enhanced weight to the opinions of some community members in the abstract. The first point serves to augment the concerns, of course. Thanks again, Ben P.S. I am trying to apply some modest rate-limiting to my own postings.
