+1 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 9:48 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Thoughts about the IETF mailing list discussion > > Well, I'm back from a five-day 'voluntary posting ban' imposed by the Sergeant- > At-Arms (SAA) on August 12th, under direction of the IETF Chair, after being > accused of being 'part of an emerging pattern of abuse' including but, > presumably, not limited to, my recent emails related to the IESG's > announcement: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UbhPgqdDNjqnL2c4LZzjWR28Q9I/ > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OdoiOlnKrHfHSl5dW2NxjfcEh6w/ > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-dNDiTeN_PFep1YZQkmvZpt6Fn4/ > > > The SAA offered me the option of posting its rebuke to me to the mailing list, > having already quickly announced my ban a couple of times. I said yes to the > option of them posting that rebuke text in full, but I haven't seen that posted. > > > I see that after I was banned, Ohta-san in Tokyo and M. Kobeissi in Paris > (France, not Texas) were also promptly banned, and M. Kobeissi's ban was later > reversed because he kicked up a fuss, and well, bullies are cowards. I do find M. > Kobeissi's minority-viewpoint arguments quite persuasive. I feel that I'm in > good company. (I'll note that this trend to replace 'bad' terms is very much in > vogue in the United States, and that the three people banned for pointing out > problems with the idea are not in the United States. Interesting, that. I'm > reasonably sure that list policing should be part of mailing list administration, > akin to giving a council car parking ticket in a civilized society, and should not be > at the behest of the IETF Chair's personal direction. IETF mailing lists are for > focused debate on topics, not just for me-too +1 agreement that avoids censure > by the Sergeants.) > > > Unsurprisingly, I have some specific and some more general thoughts on this.. > No great realizations, alas; more a collection of pointers to stuff I hadn't been > tracking closely that indicate a trend I hadn't paid much attention to but you, > dear reader, have probably noticed. > > > The discouraging-bad-terminology draft discussion that kicked this off is very > much a red herring testing the waters, and in my opinion is simply another play > in pushing issues in terms of how speech is policed, how IETF mailing lists are > run and how discussion is conducted, to be escalated slowly but ultimately to > how the IETF itself is run and what goals are set for it. Change comes from > within, an avalanche needs a first rock to fall, a journey starts with a single step, > all that. > > > The IETF is set up on mailing lists to do its work, and, in these days of COVID > and forced distanced working, needs them more than ever. Mailing lists are > where the bulk of IETF work is done, directions are decided, drafts are > discussed, and many decisions are taken. > > > Mailing-list etiquette is imo not difficult for an adult to master. Don't be an ass, > argue the point, not the person, try to avoid ad hominem and bad rhetoric, > make a point that is relevant and do try and write well; you're taking the > attention of a lot of people, many who may disagree with you, some strongly. > At least be polite (though expectations of what politeness entails and its > customs do vary). If you're not, you'll get called on it. Be interesting, if you can. > Being entertaining is a welcome, if rare, bonus. > > > And yet, it seems that we have been Doing Mailing Lists Wrong All This Time.. > Not inclusive enough? Toxic? That's not my experience; I find IETF-Discuss to be > nowhere near as toxic as many other places can be, Twitter included, and > there's a widely shared view of what the list is about and is for. Written down, > codified. > > > I do find that automatic filtering of list mails into list mailboxes and threading of > subjects provides useful distancing from topics and allows focusing my > attention. I can come and go from IETF-Discuss or from various working group > discussions without any undue emotional attachment, but then I'm not > required to read or comment on everything. Or, because it's the IETF and I'm > just a peon, anything. But that's just my experience. > > > I was struck by something Alissa Cooper, the current IETF chair, had minuted in > the GENDISPATCH meeting on 30 July: > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/gendispatch/minutes > > > * **Alissa Cooper** : really interesting discussion. Interesting noting > dramatic difference in tone here vs tone on ietf@ietf. Appreciate the > desire to want a forum for discussion. An IETF mailing list seems a > really problematic way to talk about this subject. Extremely painful > to read through, and that dynamic pushes people out of the discussion > who need to be there and are absent from it entirely in its current > form. It's almost like having meetings like this is a better way. > > > Now, we've had IETF chairs who were criticized for paying too much attention > to Cisco, and for not paying enough attention to Cisco (that was the same guy, > at the same time). We've had chairs that had doubts about evolution or > believed that all problems could be resolved by thinking about them on a cross- > country ski trip. But as far as I know we've never before had a chair that didn't > like reading IETF mailing lists because they were felt to be painful. The 'I can't > read the mailing list now, because feelings' is now a trope that now seems to > be recurring, even among people in senior roles. Emotions are not just being > brought to the table, but are actually being expressed, with actual words. > > > These emotional responses and just-can't-deal-with-it statements are odd for > me to see, especially from people posting about drafts they're invested in -- and > receiving feedback on their drafts that they don't like to read, then calling foul. I > do wonder what mail filtering and threading, if any, they're using, and what > distancing that affords them mentally. > > > But mailing lists are how topics are debated in the IETF. One might wonder, if it > can't be discussed on any mailing list, perhaps it is not a topic for the IETF or > IETF contributors? Is an absent IETF contributor who doesn't contribute to > mailing lists still a contributor? This is the kind of philosophy Wittgenstein's > Tractatus 7 gets into. > > > Is someone who doesn't want to be there not there simply because they just > don't want to be there? Or because they're not interested? Or feel oppressed? > By a mailing list? Surely only the putative contributor can decide if they need to > be there? And if they really need to be there, they'll be there? Despite the pain > of reading the mailing list? Can they work through the pain of the mailing list > and of having to listen to other people whose opinions are as valid as theirs > are? And can they set up a separate mailbox for it? Is their presence on the list > felt by their very absence? Does the list discussion call out for them? Is reading > disagreement that painful? Do they feel as oppressed by reading journalism? Is > hell other people, and their loud opinions? Thanks, Sartre. Not easy questions > to answer. > > > But if it's a matter of tone: the problem is apparently really Loud Men Talking > Loudly on this list, which is what men are wont to do, and which is indeed > exactly what I am doing right now.One can be loud, but also quite self-aware. > And this male behaviour has, of course, already been called out As Wrong. Even > though I'm engaging with the list and the subject matter. > > > https://hackcur.io/whats-wrong-with-loud-men-talking-loudly-the-ietfs-culture- > wars/ > > (via the Oxford Internet Institute, which awarded Cooper's doctorate. It really is > a small world. But there's a good simple rejoinder to much of that world: > https://twitter.com/Nathabeer/status/1294353253463928835 > > "To be frank, one of the worst encounters I experienced in the IETF was with > some women. I didn't experience sexism but bullying by other women because > I didn't feel the need to join a women-only group.") > > > It's interesting how this sort of material moves quickly from anthropological > analysis to prescriptive action. It's very much like 'Boys: They won't do what > they are told and get distracted in class' or 'Men and Sportsball: What can we > do about it?' > > > Well, we can always make Sportsball more inclusive. Remove violent tackles > from rugby, change the rules, give everyone a ball. But at some point, it ceases > to lose its activity and purpose, just as eventually, reasoned debate that is too > watered down ceases to be useful debate; it degenerates into a series of > unending "+1"s. > > > If you don't want to play sportsball to progress the state of the art, you > shouldn't have to. Deliberately working to include people who really don't like > sportsball and who stand on the sidelines saying that it's played all wrong, or > try to play to their own rules and promptly take their ball home, is simply too > difficult. (Those sidelines are Twitter commentary, these days. Many Twitter > involved - ahem, IETF tweeps - remain _completely appalled_ by this mailing > list. But I should also say that vast chunks of Twitter do remain completely > devoted to Sportsball, showing that sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.) > > > I note that the IETF Chair is also the Area Director for GENDISPATCH (I would > have thought that either in itself would be a fulltime role, as is staying woke), > and that the GENDISPATCH terminology draft was written by Mallory Knodel, > who, just as Cooper was, is at the Center for Democracy and Technology. That's > a primarily-US lobbying organisation, pleased to be disrupting the IETF: > > > https://cdt.org/insights/pushing-internet-standards-governing-body-ietf-to- > tackle-discriminatory-and-exclusionary-terminology/ > > > You'd think a Center for Democracy and Technology would be more interested > in spending time on the upcoming US election, on say, the democratic > technology of voting machines and ensuring that a federal republic with mass > disenfranchisement and a skewed voting college at least pretends to resemble > a democracy to some degree, but here we are. Promoting US-style democracy > is laudable, but fixing it is not. Anyway, probably too late for that. Pick the > battles that you might win, in line with larger goals. > > > Knodel's also running the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Consideration group, > which had a feminist take on how the IETF should be: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-guerra-feminism-01.txt > > https://www.apc.org/en/blog/can-we-make-internet-standards-feminist- > discussion-internet-freedom-festival > > > Certainly new territory to be explored; I've certainly never given > intersectionality its due when designing protocols or state machines. > > > Ultimately, beyond the IETF-discuss mailing list, this seems to be a growing > trend in approaching IETF governance, and who gets to choose how things are > run. Or, at least, an opening volleys of sorts in beginning that effort. It's less > technical but far more political, and this particular politics has some external, > well-funded, lobbyists. > > > The problem with discussing politics is that separating the person from the > political viewpoint held is often far harder to do cleanly, and motives and > purpose come into it more. It's more difficult to not go ad-hominem. Still, most > IETF participants have external funding of some sort, and everyone has a > viewpoint. But one rather wishes that the lobbying and politicking to set the > direction of governance was a bit more transparent in stating its larger goals. > > > Speaking of governance, separation of powers is commonplace in democracies: > the _trias politica_ of legislature; executive; and judiciary, though that and the > rule of law are often under attack. > > > In the IETF, we have approximations in the IAB, the IESG, and the RFC-Editor, > though we've been without a proper RFC-Editor for well over a year. Publishing > judgement and technical gatekeeping has been weakened administratively over > the years, if you like. It can be argued that the power of the RFC Editor has been > considerably diminished since the glory days of Postel, and that remediating > steps have not been enough. Discussions about language and discussions just > distract from that. Rule of law? That's now who the Chair sets the SAA on. I > sense a lack of balance in the force. But here I am, discussing the seemingly > smaller issue tone on mailing lists. > > > Aspects of this problem are very much sourced from the American culture still > dominant in the IETF. That prompts a fictive analogy also taken from American > culture; George Lucas intended Star Wars to be commentary on the United > States and its governance, shining city on a hill and all. > > > The Jedi, smug annoying superior mostly-male know-it-all jerks that they are, > are completely surprised and upended by someone in a position of power, who > starts a minor dispute as a pretext, then relies on a younger apprentice to spur > growing conflict and eventually completely destroys the systems of governance, > sweeping away the existing power structure and value system to install a new > one of people who think alike, but are programmed to think differently. But > that canon was brought into being by an entire movie where there is only one > significant woman in leadership, who is permanently annoyed by the actions of > al the white men around her and their ongoing maleness. There are lessons in > combining those. (Oh, spoiler alerts. sorry..) > > > Welcome to the Culture Wars. I have a bad feeling about this. May the RFC > Editor be with you. > > > L. > > > If you need me, I'll be in an Australian desert, under a single blazing sun.. > > > Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood -- https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org
