On 10/2/22 18:49, Adam Roach wrote:
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.
I don't think there was any misdirection, and I didn't use either term
in the message you were replying to.
Fundamentally, at least a couple of messages ago, we are/were discussing
an effort by IESG to censor someone because (at least some of) his
expressed opinions were in conflict with then then-leaders' agenda.
(I haven't tried to analyze each of the examples from this perspective,
but this is certainly the case for some of them.)
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.
I agree.
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.
I don't see quite such a bright line, because sometimes consensus has
been improperly declared and that's not realized until that consensus
has been declared and someone objects. It makes more sense to make the
lack of consensus clear immediately than to burden the community with an
appeal. Responsible chairs will realize their error and fix the
situation quickly.
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.
I might even agree, but I don't immediately see what this has to do with
the current topic.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
