--On Saturday, October 15, 2022 04:07 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/14/22 14:11, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> --On Friday, October 14, 2022 12:41 -0400 Keith Moore
>> <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> I probably wouldn't use the word "disrespect" here. But
>>> nobody should feel compelled to support ideas or protocols
>>> that they believe are harmful, or even to dissect exactly
>>> what's wrong with such ideas or protocols in detail.
>>> Maybe we just need a standardized, approved way to say "I
>>> respectfully disagree that this is a good idea."
>> Keith,
>>
>> Maybe. But that is where we could easily slip into the other
>> side of the problem. While the language is much better and
>> presumably conveys more respect, that sort of sentence does
>> not actually convey more actual information than "<foo> is an
>> <expletive>" even if it is much nicer.
>
> Agree. But for better or worse, sometimes a participant A
> is simply not willing to continue a discussion with
> participant B. If the participant A keeps arguing without
> actually adding information, the best result is that the
> discussion will loop. And it's fairly likely to get ugly as
> either A or B starts responding less-than-constructively and
> the other one then tends to respond in kind. So I think
> it's maybe useful to have some convention that politely
> implies that one participant doesn't think there's any point
> in continuing the discussion, at least not until there's some
> new information that would change one or the other's mind, or
> maybe the proposal has been substantially revised.
That is fair and reasonable. However, before I go on, note
that, absent an understanding of the code (see below), the
person who proposed the idea might easily interpret the proposed
approved statement as an invitation to try to convince people
that it was, in fact, a good idea -- precisely the opposite of
what you are trying to accomplish.
> And while whoever is on the receiving end of that message will
> probably not like it, they might at least understand that
> there's an advantage of not wasting energy on a pointless
> argument.
Ok, but your suggested language / convention does not convey
that directly. I could be a code for that message, which would
be fine except that I don't think we should be speaking in coded
language. If nothing else, it is likely to deter newcomers,
including newcomers who are not problematic in any way, from
participating. If Participant A wants Participant B
(presumably the source of the idea or message to which
Participant A wants to convey "I respectfully disagree..." to
get the message without knowing the code, they might need to say
something slightly more explicit such as "I respectfully
disagree that this is a good idea and will not continue the
conversation, at least unless you or others introduce some new
ideas or reasoning."
That, of course, is much less coded. Being less coded is
important because a Participant B who has introduced ideas
that, for example, the community has discussed and rejected
multiple times and who has not done the research needed to
understand the issues, to know that history, or to listen to
people who have tried to explain it (or ignored all of that), it
is perhaps unlikely that they will have studied the codebook.
Of course, that takes us close to another line. Participant B
might plausibly see that suggested message and interpret
Participant A's decision to not continue the conversation as a
negative personal comment even though Participant A did not
intend that (we may even have seen examples of that type of
interpretation misunderstanding in the last few weeks). In
some cases, the statement would be shorter and might more
accurately reflect Participant A's intent, but omitting the last
clause, or even "or others" from that clause, may raise the odds
of Participant B (or well-intentions others acting on B's behalf
or in B's defense) construing the comment as insulting or
demeaning.
While I would actively discourage anyone from saying, e.g., "I
respect your opinions but I think that idea is garbage and will
not discuss it further", such statements do have the advantage
of being very clear and direct. The more we try to avoid giving
offense by circumlocutions or coded language, the greater the
risk that readers will misunderstand and will either take action
opposite what was intended or, especially if they do not speak
excellent American English, will translate the comment as
reflecting negatively on them personally. We might almost be
better off saying "Comment C (see
www.ietf.org/glossary-of-standardize-comments)". That would at
least make it extremely clear that we are speaking in coded
language and would tell that reader where to go to look for an
explanation.
> Such arguments are of course not limited to discussion of
> ideas that, for example, seem to lack a basic understanding of
> the laws of physics, mathematics, economics, etc.
Of course.
john
