Re: Notification to list from IETF Moderators team

[Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 25, 2022, at 02:40, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Again just because some behavior is arguably harmful to IETF discussion, doesn't necessarily justify arbitrary corrective action, and certainly doesn't justify more censorship that has already made IETF much more toxic.

1) the actions were not “arbitrary”

2) two weeks of not being allowed to post is not “draconian”

3) the toxic nature of this list has made people quit this list once we made the tools available to no longer be required to be in this list (the last-call list and IMAP access without list subscription)

4) there is data backing up that the toxic nature of this list and some in person discussions is affecting participation

5) there is no data to back up your claims that the few rare times people were temporarily moderated caused damage

6) there is no data to backup your claim that a minority of people at the IETF are governing the IETF against IETF consensus

If you provide no further data for 5) or 6) than I will no longer post to this thread as I feel all arguments have been made at this point based on the available data.

  I think dealing with some amount of rudeness goes with the territory.  

That is not however, the IETF consensus, which has concluded this is causing more damage (decreased participation) than good (a single rude persons technical input)

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

Interesting, I thought “your idea is stupid” and “you (vendor) people are maliciously sabotaging protocol X” were in fact because they no longer wanted to engage on technical merit, and that the people saying “do not insult, please use technical arguments and not ad hominem attacks” were the people trying to have a technical merit discussion.

,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?

Indeed. As a newcomer guide and mentor, it feels really awful to have to warn newcomers about needing to face extremely unwanted behaviour in our group because of some individuals perceived “IETF culture”.

I cringe at the idea that IETF should be a "safe space" in which vigorous, passionate discussion is not permitted

This statement is misleading and demeaning. Passionate discussions are allowed at IETF. Using “safe space” in a derogatory sense as you just did is the opposite of building an open inclusive discussion space and has already resulted in people leaving (part or whole of( the IETF and is actively harmful. 

   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.

Candor != rudeness

I also fail to see how disbanding IETF would result in more technical merit discussions.

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.  

They need to learn many new skills. Being repeated targets of diminishing language is not a required skill we should add to their list of chores.

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 do. What can we do if this eduction is repeatedly ignored and fails to address the problem? I would like to see your proposal draft to update our current process RFCs on this matter. obviously, “do nothing different” is per definition not a solution but just a different way or restating the problem. I am willing to review your text.

Paul