IMO, the supposedly-corrective action has a much larger chilling effect than the occasional incident of name-calling. I'm not defending name-calling, but I do object to draconian "corrective" behavior when I believe there's reason that that behavior causes an even greater harm. I hope that difference is clear.
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.(I can't help but wonder, why do so many people feel entitled to believe they've read my mind, tell others what they assume I'm thinking, and implicitly criticize me for that? Is that people's idea of constructive engagement? Is that actually better than calling me "stupid" or just more passive-aggressive? Are the moderators now tempted to step in and take corrective action? [please don't; I have a relatively thick skin and think that would also do more harm than good.])
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 we can stop debating that, because I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on at least that one point.
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.
No you shouldn't really have to deal with personal insults, though I hope that the occasional personal insult can be forgiven in the interest of progress. This work is frustrating for everyone at times. so I understand when people let their frustration show.
I'd probably agree with that hypothetical. But I'm not concerned about hypotheticals as much as I am about things that really happen.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.
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?
I cringe at the idea that IETF should be a "safe space" in which vigorous, passionate discussion is not permitted because someone might get their feelings hurt. It's impossible to have a useful technical debate without candor, and if IETF is going to insist on doing that, it should just disband right now for the good of everyone.
I agree, we must do better. But expecting that newcomers won't have to learn new skills in order to do this kind of work strikes me as hopelessly naive. We need to promote a wider understanding of how to engage in candid, constructive technical debate; we need to educate old hands as well as newcomers. We need to make this a community effort that everyone feels ownership in, rather than one arbitrarily imposed from above.
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.
