Hi Keith,
At 03:53 PM 20-10-2021, Keith Moore wrote:
The aggregate effect of such efforts is to make IETF more like an
echo chamber, in which everyone is expected to "know their place" -
i.e. know to not express views that might conflict with the views of
those in power, or otherwise know the unwritten "rules". This is,
after all, often what is expected of "professionals" in their
workplaces, which is yet another reason why "professional" is a poor
criterion for describing which behavior is appropriate or not in
IETF discussions.
I read comments about the word "professional" in a RFC over the
years. Here is another comment [1] (translated with Yandex):
"Unfortunately, this RFC feels obliged to add that it is necessary to behave
in a professional manner as if amateurs were avinee brutes and that it is
only in the context of work that one can be civilized."
The sentence with that word was the "IETF Consensus" when the RFC was
approved for publication. The "know their place" was removed during
the revision of the document. There isn't anything in the RFC which
prohibits a participant from expressing his/her disagreement with an
Area Director's decision.
One of the points which you raised is about "a system in which people
are placed in a series of levels with different importance or
status". The RFC does not establish a system with different levels
of importance or status.
The underlying value for some participants is most likely related to
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
A participant residing in another country might not have the
background information to understand those participants. It takes
many years to understand all that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. http://r.elandsys.com/r/86822
