Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I am continuing to press this issue because I wish to be vigilant
> against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and
> consensus-based decision-making.
[Though I'm replying to Keith, I'm really picking one somewhat arbitrary
message to reply to here, as many points have been raised on both sides
that the below could apply to. Thus, this is not directed at you
Keith.]
One important aspect to consider, that's been left out of this
conversation so far, is the other effect that these discussions have on
the body of the IETF. What has been discussed, so far, is the potential
damage against openness if any form of censorship or code of conduct is
allowed. What hasn't been discussed is the flip side of the damage to
the IETF membership body by having these conversations and documents
challenge the limits of what is acceptable speech.
In essence, which is more important: expanding our participation and
continuing our traditions into the future? Or ensuring that we have
complete freedom of expression, because without that our future is
already dark. Both are valid concerns, and every individual must
prioritize one over the other. But without the IETF finding a
common-ground/consensus position, it is unlikely we will fair well
into the future in a polarized state.
These types of conversations have driven a huge number of people off
this list. These types of conversations have caused a measurable number
of people to stop participating in the IETF. Every person must consider
whether the loss of participants a good thing ("you must have tougher
skin", placing the blame on the participant) or a bad thing ("we need to
stop all forms of un-professionalism" at the expense of free speech).
The line is a slippery slope in both directions.
I've had the pleasure of speaking to lots of newcomers in the IETF in
the past N years (not sure of N). Many are full of enthusiasm and want
to understand the culture so they can join in. I've also been saddened
by a number of participants that have had rather negative experiences in
their early participation, and have vowed to never return. Here are
some takeaways from past notes from the newcomers feedback session:
- "I [now] fear coming here"
- "the [a particularly tense WG] session was overwhelming"
- "Someone actually said 'your draft is so long and so boring my
company isn’t going to implement it, so kill it'; can companies
kill things like that?"
- "The attitudes and egos can be surprising and brash; need to be
prepared for it"
- "A quick-connections guide saw the company name on my badge and
- immediately walked away from me. I'm tempted not to
put my company name on my badge next time."
Our culture takes a while to get used to. It always has. I've listened
to a lot of seasoned IETFers give advice to newcomers that include
warnings about how brash the conversations can be. I myself have given
a lot of newcomers advice about how you can see people yelling at each
other in a meeting and then later drinking beers together in bars. Why
are these warnings necessary? What would happen if we didn't provide
them? Should they be necessary? Is this the cultural education should
be proud to provide? Is it a core, necessary feature of the IETF that
is a requirement of its success? It seems (the collective) we have very
differing view points about that.
What do we want the future make of the IETF to look like? A technical
body where heated arguments can be had freely, regardless of the
chilling factor it likely has on the voices willing to participate? Or
a more polite group with a wider collective cultural perspective that
requires its participants to refrain from extreme speech and voicing
extreme emotions?
It appears we can't have a middle ground?
This is your IETF. What do you want it to look like?
--
Wes Hardaker
