On 11/16/22 05:54, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Keith,
(sorry if this message was long but I think it covers my
position on the subject)
Firstly, I thank you very much for your discussions related
to BCP 83 and I really enjoy discussing with you and hope you
have same feelings.
I appreciate your discussions also. I think it's important
that people with diverse views, and even diverse senses of
"rightness" contribute to these discussions. It’s especially
important that no particular person's or group's sense of
"rightness" is held to be inherently more right than others'.
So I am discussing from Africa Region and I think you are
discussing from America Region, we may have different
traditions but I believe we have the same common sense and
both we want a progress in the subject under discussion. I
believe it is a communication_principle that ietf_participants
involved in one work_subject SHOULD have similar/common
objectives to progress in work.
Perhaps the trick is to understand, without assuming, what those
common objectives are.
For example, I'd like to think that we all believe that the
Internet is good for humanity, that there's virtue in making it
work reliably and efficiently and inexpensively, that it should be
universally available, and that it shouldn't favor any particular
country's or company's interests.
(But I'm not sure that we all believe that, or that we all should
believe that, any more. After almost 40 years of Internet
existence [*] we are starting to see ways in which the Internet
has not worked out as well as many of us hoped it would. It's
easy to see how the Internet has degraded our privacy; has made us
all subject to surveillance by governments and businesses to a
much greater degree than before; has made our fragile computer
systems much more vulnerable to attack; has amplified the voices
not only of those whose legitimate voices had not widely been
heard before (good) but also of miscreants, conspiracy theorists,
trolls, spammers, and others seeking to promote hatred, discord,
or otherwise do harm; and has created some technology giants who
exert far too much control over our lives. So maybe the "good
for humanity" needs some qualification.)
[*] If we accept the ARPAnet transition to TCP date of 1983.01.01
as the "turning on" of the Internet, though of course some
implementation of Internet Protocol existed before that.
Secondly, there is no doubt that Organisation_Experts have
strong sense of what is Right and strong sensing what is
Wrong, also experience sensing what is Good, Bad and Ugly
within IETF Communications and Computing/Analysing of
Informations. Sensing is very important in making humans and
things more intelligent in actions, reactions and
interactions. Furthermore, having common abilities make
communications more cooperative. Therefore, IMHO if all
participants within any IETF WG have
common_sense_ability_and_objective then they can be more
working progress and more cooperative. As Jack Ma said once
about AI and Quality of life: "I always tell myself that we
are born here not to work, but to enjoy life. We are here to
make things better for one another."
In fact, there is (and should be) sincere doubt about those
things. I personally question the wisdom of so-called "Experts" and believe
it is necessary to do so. (Who gets to decide who is an expert? And experts are frequently wrong.)
Of course we all make judgments about
what is desirable and what is bad, and some people are more knowledgeable than others. But I don't know that there are
any experts who are entitled to have their judgments accepted
without question.
Also our IETF RFC technologies, always depends on that both
communication/computing ends need to be having the same
protocol in common, so IMHO, it is very principle engineering
to have common sensing protocol, and common communication
protocol so we can have cooperative results. In one important
work [1] it looks into IETF decision makings of
IETF_business_work and I think concluded that we need
cooperative discussions within IETF decision_makings. So I am
one that believes that All IETF discussions needs cooperative
parties in IETF_directors, IETF_participants, IETF_rfc_authors
and among all. More comments below,
I want to say up front that I don’t want to rehash the recent BCP 83 discussion here. I don’t think that’s likely to be productive. I do think that that action and the resulting discussion demonstrated that we need to make several changes - to BCP 83, to the roles assigned to IESG and the Chair, and to our community expectations for speech and behavior. But we need to wait a bit, leave some space, and let the dust settle first.
We absolutely do need cooperation among all parties to work together to build consensus. Unfortunately I believe management actions in recent years have been extremely counterproductive to building consensus.
As far as I can tell, "common sense" is one of those phrases
that people
use to argue for some position that they do not know how to
support.
My meaning of *common sense* is
human_management_common_sense to make Right Decision_Makings
to such continuous behavior (i.e. as human have same sensing
of voices, image, etc.). This BCP or this RFC_use_case is
related to management to use, and not society_individuals to
use, so I think our discussion can be scoped more on the
IETF managerial common sense of Managing
Human_Organisation's inter_communications and not
participants' common sense.
IMO, there was no common sense of any kind behind the recent BCP 83 action, either in starting that action or it’s result. But maybe we should not use the words “common sense” when what we’re probably talking about is more accurately described as “common prejudice”.
It reflects a presumption that everyone else thinks, or
should think,
like the speaker thinks.
This BCP was produced by the society and not produced by
the management of IETF, so the policy_speaker is the
human_society of this IETF organisation. Furthermore, the
IETF_society is choosing their managers not the other
way around as some organisations do, so our management's
common sense will consider that as well. There is no doubt
that the IETF_society is selecting their IETF_Best_Experts
and Best_Available. Therefore, I think if I understood you
the words *the Speaker_thinks* can be pointed at the IESG,
so my reply is that they SHOULD be the best_ietf_experts
otherwise we MUST blame the IETF_Society of no courage of
talking/speaking.
BCP 83 was produced by the community. But it was produced in a
different time, and under different conditions than we have in
IETF today, and it was intended for a different purpose than that
for which it was recently used.
My argument's important phrase_objectives are
*Social_Organisation* and *Managerial_Cooperation*, then
within that organisation we already get to know/sense what
is normal/good and what is not normal. All
Human_Organisation_Managers build a common sense of what is
right and what is wrong from experience within their
organisations (they may also build common traditions). There
are many business books analysed the organisation behavior
and show important of Human_Management decisions for
business and progress (I think our Research Groups have
been doing some work in that direction). IETF is doing
important internet_business as we know and maybe lagging in
following up the world's technology evolution.
Reality is that different people are exposed to widely
different
conditions and experiences in life, and different people
Yes, that is why we need management/group_directors/IESG
to have time to look into that reality which is very
complicated when we deal with humans and interactions
among_humans. Also *Reality* is the IT market/business that
needs new standards to follow the developments and there are
work_management process issues and research done for IETF
organisation which needs to be understood/considered by all
IETF society participants [1].
Reality is that different people are exposed to widely
different
conditions and experiences in life, and different people are
born with
different personalities and values, so each person develops
their own
sense of the bounds of propriety. To some extent these
things are
reinforced by other people, but not entirely so. And such
reinforcement is often harmful, for example, in that it can
serve to
protect abusive practices or individuals.
IETF already produced this Best Current Practice, so are
you against it, because my discussion/argument is not about
amending or changing this BCP, but my discussion is about
how to use it now, and I think you are doing the same. My
discussion is not against having IESG deciding to use this
BCP or not, but maybe I think you are doing that. So my
reply is a question: Do you want this IETF organisation
without rules/group_management that controls posting of
special_attacks? Do you want society_individuals free to
disrupt the IETF_process with no sense of control or with no
management_interference?
No abusive practice that's tolerated by society, and no
mistaken notion
of how the world works, ever gets changed without some
individuals
having the courage to violate "common sense" ideas of
propriety.
IMHO, to make our ietf_organisation simple, there are two
courage_planes in the IETF_human_Organisation, one is
Working_Plane and the other is Control_plane, so I am
interested to first discuss Control_plane then
Working_plane, and don't want to mix them. Some discussion
mix and some separate, but this IETF_BCP is about separation
so it is better to separate so we get into
discussion_progress results. However, we have other level of
controls within IETF_work_process but IMHO this BCP_action
is not about those.
In addition, The IESG will always give chance to
societies courage/new_ideas to discuss and find consensus
within society so the societies common sense is heard before
IESG decision, on the other hand the manager's common sense
is important to make the possible_initiation of this
BCP_action and asking for the societies_consensus, then the
IESG's common sense decision making come into discussion
among ietf_society_directors.
Finally, the ietf_society can be more clear for the
working_plane, if they think they need more clear
definitions of what is good/ugly
human_communication/behavior on the IETF_environments, then
it is better to have another RFC that is related to
Working_Plane and not Control_Plane, within the
IETF_Organisation, so we can be simple, sensitive and clear.
Best Wishes,
AB
|
