Nor does theirs change mine. But in my experience, "rudeness" is
highly subjective, and nowhere nearly universal.
For example, what I've seen consistently throughout my life is
that people think you're being rude when they think you don't
"know your place". They assume that behavior should be governed
by a dominance hierarchy, and the people who refuse to adhere to
that hierarchy (say, by disagreeing with those seen as having
higher status) are seen as rude.
Such a hierarchy is detrimental to consensus-making, and has
absolutely no place in IETF. Yes, people with appointed
positions have jobs to do and participants should not try to keep
them from doing their jobs. But everyone should feel free to
respectfully disagree even with those people as long as their
disagreement is sincere.
Given this debate, isn't "respectfully" just as subjective as "rudeness"?
And that anti-pattern is so common that I don't take others'
perceptions of rudeness as axiomatically valid. I think they're
sincere but not necessary correct. Particularly when they're
newcomers to consensus-based decision-making.
I think this line of thinking ascribes a great deal of complexity to what is really a very simple premise: I object to being called "stupid", and if that's to be tolerated, I will gladly remove myself from the place where it's tolerated and take my skills and energy with me. My definition, or yours, or anyone's, of "rude" doesn't factor into that equation.
We all lament that newcomers feel this way, yet a few people cry foul when an action is taken to try to curb that sort of conduct on the basis that this corrective action chills discourse. I would argue that the primary (and to the IETF, lethal) chilling effect has at that point already happened.
This has nothing to do with hierarchy. I didn't like being called "stupid" before I was on the IESG any more or less than I do now, nor do I think the reaction should be any different depending on what dots someone's badge has.
Whose work is being shut down? A person who got their posting
rights
restricted for two weeks as warning for targetting insults at
individuals and groups?
The harm done by such draconian sanctions is much greater than
denying a single person the right to post for two weeks.
I suspect you're discounting (perhaps to zero) the harm done by allowing targeted insults to go unchecked.
If you want to build consensus, you need to be willing to listen
even when it's difficult to do so. If you don't want to build
consensus, what are you doing in IETF? (it's a rhetorical
question; I don't expect an answer)
I'm here to build consensus for topics to which I wish to contribute, even when that's hard work. Sometimes I lose arguments, or I'm in the rough during consensus calls. Sometimes that's really frustrating. But yes, that's part of the process.
I am, however, not here to tolerate being called "stupid" for any reason. I think it's flatly wrong -- no, I think it's manifestly absurd -- to claim those two things necessarily go hand in hand, in the sense that if you're here to build consensus, you have to put up with both.
When people use accusations of rudeness to shut down technical
discussion, it is precisely because they
don't want to
engage in the discussion on technical merits, and they
don't
want to explain their reasons for sabotaging the discussion.
Their very purpose is to sabotage someone else's technical
proposal
without explaining why.
I suggest another perspective. If you (the hypothetical "you", to be clear) propose something technical, I engage you in debate, and you respond to me with insults or rudeness (wherever one's line for "rude" may be), then whether I choose to complain about your conduct or quietly disengage, I am not the one who sabotaged the technical discussion; you are.
Your argument that "tolerance is a virtue" was something you
accepted was
not successfull based on for example the newcomer feedback.
Newcomers are not the sole arbiters of what is constructive,
particularly in an organization that they do not yet understand,
and a practice of consensus-building that is likely alien to
them. (unless, say, they're long time Quakers or members of some
other group that routinely tries to foster consensus, in which
case we should be asking them for advice.)
It's good to get feedback from newcomers, bad to let such
feedback dictate policy. If anything such feedback shows how we
could do a better job at educating newcomers.
I cringe at the idea that we need to teach newcomers that they need to have really thick skin and will occasionally need to put up with flat-out public abuse because nobody is coming to stop such behavior. Why would anyone stay here?
Newcomers are the future of this or any organization. A common refrain at NomCom time is to ask how we plan to improve our leadership pipelines. It's not hard to see the connection.
This work is challenging, to be sure, but we certainly don't seem to be keen on making it any more attractive. If we're OK with scaring many of the new people away, we may as well pack everything up and go do something else, because it's only a matter of time before they stop coming and the rest of us retire.
We must do better than this.
-MSK, speaking only for myself
