On 6/12/22 10:50, S Moonesamy wrote:
(I'm not aware of that pamphlet. Do you have a reference for it?)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.
A 1955 pamphlet tackled controversial topics (unrelated to the IETF) and publicized the approach. Is your argument about an obvious problem which is politely ignored to maintain an appearance that an Internet-Draft is ready for publication as a RFC?
My argument is that "rude" (and for that matter "unprofessional") are harmfully vague criteria both for sanctioning speech and for self-limiting of speech.
The obvious problem that is politely ignored in order to approve
an I-D for publication might or might not be an example.
Sometimes the obvious problems are relatively minor and
publication of the document as-is will do little harm. Sometimes
the problems will get fixed in AUTH48. Individual participants
can decide for themselves whether to support a consensus to
approve the document, despite its flaws, based on their own
reasoning. The perfect is the enemy of the good. But it should
not be considered "rude" to point out problems, even minor ones,
or rude to not support a consensus to approve the document.
If on the other hand people believe that they "should not" speak
to valid technical concerns because they think it might be
considered "rude", IMO they should think again. Similar reasoning
applies if the question is one of speaking up to abusive speech or
behavior, or to a declaration of consensus when there are clearly
significant unaddressed concerns, or to suppression of others'
relevant input for no defensible reason.
Sometimes there's a responsibility to speak up even when it's
uncomfortable.
But that's just one aspect of what I'm concerned about. Mostly
I think that IETFers need to know that they're permitted to speak
up on any technical concern, or on any mishandling of process, or
any kind of abuse. Even if it feels "rude" to speak up. It
always feels rude to speak truth to power. And even if the same
kind of speech at work would result in reprisals - because quite
often at work, challenging the boss is a career-limiting move even
when you're 100% right and the wrong decision would harm people.
Fortunately, we don't have bosses in IETF. And that's just one
reason that "professional" is a poor criterion for inappropriate
speech in IETF.
The way that people know that it's okay to speak up is to witness
other people speaking up, even being "rude" or "unprofessional",
and not being subjected to reprisal. An atmosphere of candor is
important to ensuring a safe space for honest technical
discussion.
And yes, some people will be uncomfortable with candor, because
they've been conditioned to limit their speech in other
contexts. But "professional" conditioning of that sort is
harmful to IETF's purpose. You can't expect to effectively build
consensus among people who have been conditioned to withhold their
opinions in their workplaces.
Keith
