On 8/24/22 19:00, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Aug 24, 2022, at 12:54, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the reason that I think that IETF is not a good use of my time
isn't that "unprofessional" or "rude" people have been getting in the
way of progress.
I believe they have been and are. As part of the newcomers
participation, we hear that the hostility displayed is definitely a
concern and leads to people to at least be reluctant to come back.
I was talking about my own experience. I'm not trying to contradict or
discredit others' experiences. When newcomers say they're seeing such
hostility, I believe they're being sincere.
Of course, different people witnessing the same interaction can come to
different conclusions about it without either person being wrong.
Speaking for myself, I am not subscribed to this list for the same
reason, the insulting rude behaviour vs useful content is too much for
me. (I am looking at this list now only because of being pointed to it
as an IESG member)
These days I'm not seeing much content at all on the IETF list, rude or
otherwise. My impression is that there's been a concerted effort over
the past several years to make the IETF list irrelevant, which I find
very unfortunate because that effort has robbed IETF of a kind of center.
It's that too many people seem to feel entitled to suppress the
inputs of those with whom they disagree, using any excuse whatsoever
other than a technical argument, or maybe no excuse at all, or any
means at their disposal.
I have not seen this happen. I are you saying these valuable
contributors have been silenced because they couldn’t rephrase their
technical content in emails without the word “stupid” in it?
Not at all (where did I say that?) Of course, that would be
unfortunate even if that were the case.
I'm not able to read the minds of the people whose work is being shut
down, and the people doing the shutting down usually don't state their
reasons. That's part of the problem, after all.
Part of working with a diverse group on protocols is being good at
communicating, in writing drafts but also in interacting with others
in a positive and constructive way.
People have a wide variety of skills and communications styles, and
people can make valuable contributions to protocols even if others don't
judge them "good" at communicating.
If they can discredit someone as being "rude" or "unprofessional",
or "naive", or belittle or discredit them in any way, they'll do that.
This is quite the accusation to “they”.
They'll do anything except argue the issues on technical merits.
Again, quite the accusation to “they”.
Yes, these are serious accusations, and to be clear, not against only a
single person. (despite the common modern usage of "they" as a singular
pronoun)
And that's the reason I started calling out people's demands for
"professional" behavior, because I'd seen too many occasions when
that demand was used as an excuse to distract from technical
discussion rather than contribute to it.
So far, I have seen none.
I wasn't claiming to speak for you, nor was I claiming that this is
happening in every working group. I'm speaking of several years' worth
of history.
Again, personally until I joined the IESG, I had some of these “rude”
people in my /dev/null redirection, so your assumption that rude
people should be allowed to be rude for technical merit still seems to
fall short - there is a higher chance of their merit being heard if
they are in fact, not insulting individuals or groups.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. (That's both rude and
insulting.) There's a huge difference between arguing that "rude
people should be allowed" and arguing that tolerance is overall a
virtue, and that vague rules for behavior and arbitrary enforcement of
such rules are harmful to consensus building. The very idea (implied)
that "rude" people should (not) be allowed is within epsilon of pure
prejudice, and is IMO indefensible.
And the organization treats those people as if they're entirely
legitimate, even promoting some of them to positions of leadership.
Could it be that you are in fact in the rough of rough consensus, and
that people who promote inclusiveness and professional behaviour are
in fact the kind of people that our organization wants to see in
leadership roles?
No. People shutting down technical discussions without giving reasons
are not behaving inclusively or "professionally" (which is after all
another form of arbitrary prejudice), but quite the opposite.
There's nothing "civil" about their behavior at all.
Again, quite the unsubstantiated accusation in response to an issue
where all the contributor had to do was restate their technical point
without insulting or accusing individuals or certain groups ?
No, you're creating a hypothetical situation and using that to try to
discredit my experience. It's disingenuous and disrespectful.
Keith
