On 4/5/21 7:25 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
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.]
And I realize that you weren't replying to me specifically (and thanks
for saying that) but I do have a specific response.
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.
I would not characterize it that way, and I actually recognize the
necessity of occasional pushback and even (in hopefully very rare cases)
censorship. But the problems created by vague criteria and secret
enforcement are not limited to a lack of "openness". Another huge
problem is that vague criteria can (and have) been used by IETF
leadership and others to suppress criticism of ideas and discussion of
alternatives, both on topics of general importance to IETF and within
working groups.
So my recommendations are:
a) the criteria for what's considered unacceptable need to be more
precisely defined, and vetted by IETF consensus, and not merely what
someone considers "unprofessional". Such vague criteria practically
invite abuse.
b) don't let the IETF Chair or IESG pick the enforcers; make the SAAs
and anyone else who has a similar responsibility entirely independent of
the IESG. (This might be somewhat problematic because WG chairs are
sometimes expected to fill that role, but perhaps WG chairs should be
instructed to refer messages that they consider problematic to SAAs and
let the SAAs do the enforcement)
Beyond that, I actually do believe that IETF discourse is necessarily
different than one expects in, say, a corporate environment. In a
corporate environment being critical of the boss's or corporate
overlords' ideas can be a career limiting move;in IETF everyone should
be free to respectfully criticize any ideas, even the ideas of IESG and
IAB members. In a corporate environment there is generally centralized
"leadership" (the degree to which this is actually true varies). IETF
is more like a hive mind, and it should be possible for any participant
to introduce new ideas and thus "lead from the bottom" if those ideas
are found to be attractive. Also, the scope of what IETF is dealing
with is greater than that of most corporations, the number of diverse
and sometimes competing interests that need to be taken into account to
make a good standard for the whole Internet is larger. Companies can
say "to hell with the competition" to a much greater degree than IETF
can. IETF is (and to the extent that it isn't, should be) also more
diverse in its participation than many corporations.
So IETF has a mission that is distinct from that of any company. And
just like some companies try to cultivate a company culture (which is
generally considered perfectly ok), so IETF also needs its own
culture. Among the aspects of that culture that I believe are
well-established are:
- Being passionate about our work is ok, and often a Good Thing. That
doesn't mean it's okay to be abusive, though sometimes people let their
passion get out of hand and need to back off a bit. Inherent in our
work is trying to make tradeoffs between interests that don't
immediately understand each other and sometimes don't even speak the
same (technical or other) language. Yes, this is often uncomfortable,
and a willingness to tolerate discomfort is very helpful in being
successful at this work.
- Anybody can participate, and we help newcomers deal with the learning
curve of both culture and process.
- We are all in this together, working to make the Internet better.
- We're all supposed to be representing our best technical judgment for
what's good for the Internet as a whole, rather than trying to push some
company's agenda.
- We make decisions by rough consensus, which means (among other things)
"don't look to the boss or those higher in the hierarchy for the right
answers"
- Titles, position, who you work for shouldn't matter. We mostly
function as peers. To the extent that we don't function as peers, it's
mostly for the sake of process, not about deciding who is right.
- Competence is essential. Nobody is competent at everything but
having the background and insight (and often experience) needed to make
sound technical judgment is necessary to participate effectively.
And yes, there's a learning curve. That's necessary. When everyone
starts insisting that we all behave like good corporate citizens, IETF
should disband.
This is your IETF. What do you want it to look like?
I want IETF to BE a place in which people are free to argue passionately
for what they believe are better ideas and/or to criticize ideas they
believe to be harmful. At the same time I want IETF to BE a place that
filters out technically poor ideas, or even ideas that others can't
understand (yet), with relative ease rather than argue about them
endlessly. And I want IETF to BE a place where ideas are judged on
technical merit (of various kinds) rather than arbitrary prejudice.
Keith
