On 14 Oct 2022, at 21:40, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Also worth clarifying: > > I had a stray ">" character in the first paragraph of my initial email. I wasn't replying or quoting anything. The ascii text “From” at the beginning of a line is used as a message delimiter in mbox mailboxes. So some mail local delivery agents will ensure that this doesn’t cause problems by inserting a > character before the text before delivering the mail. I.e. you probably didn’t put it there. Nick > By "I'm also not aware of anyone arguing that some level of tolerance is important and helpful during conversations." could perhaps be better expressed as "I'm also not aware of anyone arguing against some level of tolerance being important and helpful during conversations". Or something like that. I promise that I proofread my email before I sent it. Several times in fact, but apparently not enough :-) > > Rob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton) >> Sent: 14 October 2022 20:39 >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: Is there any way that we can progress from the repeated >> moderation discussions? >> >> Erik has kindly pointed out a typo: clearly, I mean "respectfully" rather than >> "respectively". At least I am consistent with my error, since I did it twice! >> >> Rob >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton) >>> Sent: 14 October 2022 20:23 >>> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Is there any way that we can progress from the repeated >>> moderation discussions? >>> >>>> From the threads that I read in the IETF, the WG meetings that I attend, >> and >>> the conversations that I have with other participants, then out of the 1000's >>> of participants in the IETF community, I can probably name less than 10 >>> people who I perceive of sometimes not participating in the IETF >> respectively. >>> From my read, the vast majority of IETF participants either support the >>> current moderation policy or otherwise accept that something like the >>> current moderation policy is necessary to encourage new younger >>> participants to show up at the IETF, which I regard as being vitally >> important >>> to the long-term health of the IETF, Stuart Cheshire gave a better >> description >>> here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last- >>> call/iO9LaRb4y0JeccHG7vhT1xsteiI/ >>> >>> I'm also not aware of anyone arguing that some level of tolerance is >>> important and helpful during conversations. >>> >>> But, for me, I regard not participating in the IETF respectively roughly as: >>> - sending unnecessarily rude or impolite emails on a recurring basis, or >>> - continually making the same arguments repeatedly, particularly >>> when adopting a position [very] in the rough, or >>> - repeatedly bringing back the same topics that have been discussed to >>> exhaustion. >>> >>> In my view, in all of these cases, the key problem is not that the broader >>> community is not listening, the problem is the polar opposite, i.e., these >> few >>> participants seem to be unwilling or unable to accept conflicting feedback >>> from the community (or leadership). E.g., even if a high percentage of the >>> comments in the conversation disagree with their (normally repeatedly >>> stated) position, then my perception is that they assume that they just >> need >>> to try harder to explain. Hence, you often see the same position being >>> restated repeatedly, perhaps in only very slightly different ways, or >> recurring >>> rude behaviour. >>> >>> Unfortunately, in my experience, trying to engage with these participants >>> privately doesn't help either. Sending a polite constructive email (generally >>> the method that I try) or more sternly worded warning seemingly makes no >>> difference, my conjecture being that they are simply not open to listening >> or >>> receive the feedback. They just see the private conversation as another >>> avenue to explain why their repeatedly stated position is right, and >> everyone >>> else is wrong. >>> >>> I personally find these repetitive threads both very frustrating and >>> emotionally draining, partly because I have a leadership position and feel >> like >>> I have some level of responsibility towards the community, who I am >> failing, >>> but also because I regard these threads as being generally harmful to the >>> IETF and the IETF community, and I'm at a loss to know how we can stop >>> them from continually happening and move discussions on the main IETF >>> mailing list to a better place. >>> >>> I have a few suggestions, which I'm sure some people will have strong >>> opinions against: >>> 1) We create a more effectively process than BCP 83, specifically with >>> some more gradual steps (maybe the initial steps are entirely private >> without >>> community awareness or review), and also without the public trial aspect >>> currently specified in BCP 83. IMO, a better PR action process would >>> probably involve the feedback being provided privately to the IESG, with >> only >>> a short community summary of the broad aspects of the feedback >> received, >>> the number (and optionally names) of people supporting or opposing such >>> an action, and what the final decision was. >>> 2) I think that we should maintain a community curated list of >>> "exhausted topics" for the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing list, that would only accept >>> new input on a discussion if the input was significantly different from what >>> has been discussed before (and an explanation of how it is different), or >>> otherwise the poster would be moderated using the existing IETF mailing >> list >>> moderation mechanisms. E.g., I would place "Discussions related to IPv10" >>> in the list of exhausted topics, that the community seems to be fed up >>> repeatedly discussing. >>> 3) Perhaps most contentiously, I would also place "discussing IETF >>> moderation" onto the list of "exhausted topics", at least for the main >>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing list. My perception is that the wider community is, like >>> me, also fed up with this endlessly recurring discussion with no possible >>> change in the IETF consensus. However, I fully appreciate that there is >> need >>> for somewhere within the IETF where moderation can be discussed (aka, >>> who guards the guards), but this could reasonably be hived off to a >> separate >>> mailing list to spare those members of the community that don't want to >>> hear the same views and positions a hundred times over. But generally, if >>> we really want to have a useful constructive conversation about >> moderation, >>> then I think that conversation needs to prominently happen in person, e.g., >>> in a side-meeting, and/or via some video enabled interim meetings. Email >>> has repeatedly been shown to not be an effective mechanism to progress >>> this discussion. >>> >>> Obviously, I appreciate the irony of both suggesting that we stop discussing >>> moderation on ietf@xxxxxxxx and at the same time starting a new thread on >>> moderation. To that end, whilst I am happy to provide clarifying comments >> if >>> requested, I will decline to actively participate in a broader discussion on >> this >>> topic over email, probably limiting my involvement to reading initial >>> responses, if any, from the broader community. I would be more than >>> happy to participate in a side-meeting (or virtual interims) on this topic if >>> other people believe that this could in any way be a constructive way >>> forward. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Rob >
