Hi Dan, I'm having a hard time mapping your comments here to the words that I wrote. In the absence of some clarification on what stance you think I'm taking and you are in opposition to, I don't think I can provide much more in the way of a useful reply. Thanks, Ben P.S. only two drafts were deleted (to my knowledge), not three. On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:31:54PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote: > > I'm saddened and shocked at the inability of IETF leadership to > understand satire. > > Do you think that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" really advocated > cannibalism or was it, perhaps, a satirical response to a problem > that should not have been taken literally? > > I'll point out that 3 satirical April 1 drafts were deleted at > the vocal insistence of Niels ten Oever who produced his own unfunny > April 1 RFC. Lars dutifully responded on twitter that he was > removing these drafts, and received the applause of the censorious > who then proceeded to cheer their own contribution. > > Niels noted that people should make fun of those who have more > power then they do. Well I think it's obvious who has the power. > It's the people you're not allowed to make fun of. > > Dan. > > On 4/1/21 8:20 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > [obligatory disclosure: this is not a statement of the IESG, and I did not > > consult with any of my fellow ADs on its content before sending. It is > > shaped in part by some discussions we had, but the opinions expressed are > > my own.] > > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:40:16PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>> In other words: is holding or expressing the opinion that "ongoing > >>> efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested > >>> participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in > >>> nature" a violation of the code of conduct? > >> That would be Orwellian in itself, wouldn't it. I await Lars' response. > > I note that based on timezones, Lars is likely asleep and that both Friday > > and Monday are public holidays in his locale, so a response from Lars may > > not be forthcoming until after that. > > > > As far as the quoted question itself, the answer is "no", and we tried to > > indicate that by saying "contributions of diverse opinions are encouraged, > > [but] they need to be done in accordance with the code of conduct, > > respecting the other individuals and opinions in the discussion". > > > > Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know > > of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to > > take an approach that produces messages structured roughly like (with [] > > indicating portions that only sometimes appear): "I believe that I > > understand what you would like to have happen in this case, and it is > > <restatement in my own words>. [However, the actual text that you are > > proposing in this draft seems to me to actually have the effect of > > <something else>.] This seems problematic to me because I think it will > > cause <thing>, which I think is harmful. [Additional justification of why > > <thing> is harmful.]" This makes it very clear that there is an active > > attempt both to understand and acknowledge what the differing party wants > > to do, and to provide a causality chain to harm that may be caused by that > > proposal. It also provides ample opportunities to clarify miscommunication > > or misundersatnding, as well as to determine whether any deviations between > > the stated intent and the implications of the specific wording of the > > proposal are inadvertent. > > > > But, while this approach is pretty reliable, it is also a lot of work! So > > it's perfectly understandable and normal to only use a subset of it, or > > other forms of discourse, depending on the situation. > > > > I believe that in some situations, satire is a prefecly usable technique > > and can be a good tool for conveying sentiments akin to those I summarize > > above as "this sees problematic to me because I think it will cause > > <thing>, which I think is harmful". But it, by itself, does essentially > > nothing to cover the "I understand what you would like to have happen" or > > "however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft seems to me > > to actually have the effect of <something else>" parts, and if those cannot > > be filled in in some other way, it's not a very effective mode of > > communication, at least for a technical discussion. Implicitly asking the > > reader to put in the effort to backfill those other steps can be > > disrespectful, especially when there is a large gap to backfill, because it > > is asking the entire reader base to independently reimplement what could > > have been provided once by the writer. (The size of this gap will, of > > course, vary from person to person and situation to situation, so > > reasonable people will tend to be accomodating of some level of variation. > > For some very well-done satire the gap is very easy to fill.) > > > > Returning now from the abstract level to this specific draft: in this case, > > speaking for myself as a reader, the gap between the presented satire and > > my understanding of the intent of what is being proposed in the terminology > > effort is so large that I simply cannot bridge it on my own. The presented > > scenario is so different from my expectations that it's not even a > > "worst-case scenario" or "bad dream"; it just simply doesn't compute for > > me. Maybe this is a lack of creativity on my part, and someone will step > > in and help show me what I'm missing, but I doubt that I'm alone in this > > regard. I would have expected a contribution to an ongoing technical > > discussion to be respectful of the readership and ask less of the reader in > > understanding what point is being made. Otherwise, the satire just looks > > like standalone satire and not a contribution to a technical discussion. > > (I hope it goes without saying that there's nothing intrinsically > > problematic about satire as satire, though IETF mailing lists are probably not > > the best place for it.) But, I'm willing to operate on the assumption > > that we are still having a technical discussion about the proposed TERM > > working group. > > > > In that vein, Ipromise to put in the effort to receive and attempt to > > understand any reasoning that is sent to me about why the proposed > > terminology work is not something that the IETF should undertake. I > > especially encourage messages covering aspects related to what I write > > above about "however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft > > seems to me to actually have the effect of <something else>", since I think > > I am seeing significant gaps between what the proponents of the work are > > saying the work is intended to do and what the opponents of the work are > > saying it will actually do. The proposed TERM charter is currently on the > > agenda of the 2021-04-08 IESG telechat. Per > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/6yVtXkj3wJjQxQA29On8-Lyvwmw/ > > please send your comments to iesg@xxxxxxxx by 2021-04-05. > > > > > > > > In closing, I'd like to follow up on a couple points from Lars' note. While > > IESG members are saddened by this draft, we do not claim a right to not > > be sad. Lloyd can post this draft, and the community members (including me) > > can respond to it, and I am sad about what I see as a detrimental effect on > > the organization, [1] but the draft is still up, and we are talking about it. > > There were two other drafts posted today that were removed from the I-D > > repository for being clearly in violation of the code of conduct, but Lars' > > note says only that this draft is "not in alignment with our code of > > conduct", which can cover many points on a spectrum. I don't think this > > says that Lloyd is bad or that Lloyd's opinions are bad, just that we can > > do better at having a respectful technical discussion that is more closely > > aligned with the code of conduct. Nobody's perfect (we will never be > > perfectly aligned with the code of conduct), and we understand that on > > occasion we all will get close to the boundary of the code of conduct, and > > that's not intrinsically a failing on our part when it happens. What's > > most important is that someone notices when we're veering astray and how we > > respond when it's pointed out. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben > > > > [1] I see this draft as having a detrimental effect because, in constructing > > an elaborate work of (what I assume to be) satire but introducing it as "a > > contribution" with no acknowledgment of its nature or attempt to "bridge > > the gap", the author seems to be setting up the sense that the efforts > > related to terminology are jocular as well. I can understand if people who > > are advocating the work feel disrespected when receiving the sentiment that > > their effort is a joke, and I see how that would in practice make us a less > > open organization. While there is value in satire, if I have to estimate > > the value that this draft, as presented (with minimal introduction on the > > list) adds, and compare it against an estimate of the harm it causes, the > > net effect seems more likely detrimental than beneficial, and so I am sad. > > > > -- > "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to > escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius >
