On 6/9/22 10:52, Jay Daley wrote:
Some people take any kind of criticism of what they think is important, as rudeness.
And some people will use any tactic to shoot down a person or an idea that they don't like, including accusing the person advocating that idea of rudeness.
Both true but both much, much rarer than people responding to genuine rudeness.
When you say "genuine rudeness", I can't tell what you mean. I don't
even know how a person can decide whether something is "genuine
rudeness" without making some (likely unwarranted) assumptions about
their intent. And that by itself should be a red flag.
It's not that people can never be rude (they can), or that rudeness is a good thing (it's not). But much of what people call rudeness is subjective and arbitrary. If people can be shut down for rudeness, that inherently stifles a robust dialog aimed at discovering technical truth.
The counterpoint to that is "If people are not shut down for rudeness, that inherently stifles an open dialog …"
Except that that's not true, or even defensible. If anything it's the
opposite of the truth.
The inherent problem is that "rudeness" can be, in practice, basically
just being unconventional in any way. Often people can't even explain
why they think something is "rude". But while some human conventions
are good, many human conventions are harmful, and many conventions are
also specific to particular situations.
As an example, one human convention is to not challenge (formal or
informal) power structures, and/or to not challenge high-status
individuals, even by calling them on incorrect statements or reasoning,
or misuses of their privilege. This convention doesn't serve IETF's
purpose at all, and I would argue that it's a destructive convention for
humanity in general.
This problem has been recognized, in some circles, for thousands of
years, and sometimes measures have been taken to try to defeat that
convention. It's why kings sometimes had "fools" to advise them - even
if those fools sometimes lost their heads (literally) for doing their
jobs. It's also why IETF has traditionally shunned some of the
trappings of "professionalism", such as by not expecting professional
attire. It's also why, at the Memphis IETF held at the Peabody Hotel,
IESG put on duck bills and walked down the duck-guano stained red carpet
to the weekly open plenary meeting.
It's impossible to speak truth to power without being seen as rude.
It's almost impossible to change society for the better without being
rude. And if we in IETF are no longer trying to make the world a
better place, we should disband.
And that's why vague rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization.
" … And that’s why no rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization."
Are we therefore agreed that both "no rules" and "vague rules" are bad, or did you mean that rudeness is too subjective to be defined in a non-vague way?
I mean something closer to the latter. "rudeness" by itself is not a
valid reason for shutting someone down or suppressing their speech. If
there's real harm being done by said person or speech, either there's a
more specific reason than "rudeness" that should be identified, or the
accusation itself should be called into question.
I do think that there can be specific rules against violating specific
conventions, without impairing open dialog too much. Every deliberative
body needs rules for decorum. But making the rules specific means that
they can be examined and debated as to whether those rules are
beneficial for IETF's mission. Keeping the rules vague means that they
can continue to be used to suppress individuals and ideas for arbitrary
reasons.
Keith
