On 10/2/22 10:02, Keith Moore wrote:
To me what is toxic is the intolerance of the expression of alternative views.
I trust that the misdirection from "disruptive behavior" to "unpopular opinion" was unintentional.
There's nothing inherently wrong with putting forth arguments of the form "I don't think the IETF should engage in this kind of work because <list of one or more good faith reasons>, and I think the negative impact will be X <and Y and Z, as necessary>," even if that position is extremely unpopular.
To be clear, they're not unrelated concepts; they're just not the same thing: unpopular opinions can become disruptive behavior when consensus is declared, those opinions are properly determined to be "in the rough," and their proponents insist on re-litigating those issues anyway. That kind of behavior blocks progress. (Did the person who called consensus get it wrong? That's always possible, and that's why we have an appeals process. I want to be clear that appeals are not the same thing as repeatedly attempting to re-litigate closed issues in the same forum.)
But in many ways, none of that is really applicable here. Once we reach a point that someone's reaction to the Executive Director of the IETF asking for community input on in-person meetings is to respond with a hostile mini-rant about a tenuously related tweet that he found elsewhere, it's not even plausibly related to "alternative views" in a way that could prompt your (again, presumably unintentional) misdirection. It's about whether we tolerate that kind of unfettered jackassery on our mailing lists, regardless of the opinions they express.
/a -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
