On 21/06/2022 16:00, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:33 AM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote on 21/06/2022 15:12:
<snip>
How the point is made makes a huge difference. And here it is important to
remember that TechBro culture is a real thing and it isn't just the bros
who engage in making the toxic workplaces more toxic.
Consider for example,
"That was proposed but I forget why we didn't do it"
"That was proposed but we didn't do it because problem X was a higher
priority"
"That keeps being proposed, the problem is X"
Versus
"That won't work"
"Dude, you keep making stupid suggestions"
"Keeps coming up but it is just as stupid"
Now admittedly, some of those are from Twitter but I have seen similar in
IETF.
I think that that exemplifies a universal truth that is often missed and
is perhaps the core of this discussion.
First, criticise the behaviour never the person.
Second, own it; not 'that is stupid' but 'I think that ...' ideally with
logical reasons, never with emotional ones.
It took me a long time to realise how much nicer the world is when I
remember this and, even now, I sometimes need to remind myself (as in
opposing the adoption of an I-D which I am about to do). I would
sacrifice all the spell-checkers in the world for a reasonableness
checker along these lines.
Tom Petch
The worse attack though is when someone in a position of power decides to
block your proposal by refusing to process it. The proposal that is never
put to the group for adoption as was promised, the last call that is
referred to a directorate which spends 12 months reviewing it, the appeal
that is submitted but ignored for 6 months while the document being
appealed became an RFC.
I am really unimpressed by the claim that IETF process represents consensus.
