Hi Keith,
At 04:32 PM 12-06-2022, Keith Moore wrote:
(I'm not aware of that pamphlet. Do you have a reference for it?)
I sent it off-list.
My argument is that "rude" (and for that matter "unprofessional")
are harmfully vague criteria both for sanctioning speech and for
self-limiting of speech.
Ok.
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.
The person might upset the authors of the I-D, the proponents of the
I-D, or the Area Director sponsoring the I-D by pointing out a
problem in an I-D when it happens at a late stage.
The person has the opportunity to send an email in an open
process. There is an expectation that the person will not be
subjected to abuse because he/she sent an email about a potential
flaw in an I-D.
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.
It is better not to mix workplace culture and IETF culture.
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.
Ok.
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.
I would limit the above to a person will be uncomfortable without
getting into the reason(s) as the person might have valid reasons not
to speak up.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
