Hmm. I think that, while our vocabularies for describing the issues are different, we are actually in almost complete agreement. Inline below. --On Saturday, June 13, 2015 14:39 +0100 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> We have rules. They are mostly vague and subjective, but > > They are not markedly more vague or subjective than is typical > for this topic. The problem is with enforcement, not with the > rules. In practice, yes. I think the form of some of the rules contributes to the enforcement problem (and the "different rules depending on we feel about the people" problem described below), but there is no practical difference in behavior. >> We almost never try to enforce >> them when they appear to be violated, at least beyond private >> or low-key requests/ advice that someone shape up. > > It's worse than even that. We never enforce them, unless the > offender is a recidivist we do not like. Technically, I don't thing "recidivist" [1] is the issue but that the practical focus is on "we don't like" not on repeated offenses. Again, a difference in how the problems are understood and described, no difference in practice. > For recidivists we do like, we give them the mild warning and > never go further, pretending each offense does not > sufficiently cross the line or is new and they only warrants > another quiet, useless warning. See above and note that if may not really match the situation to characterize "mild warning" as "punishment" >... >> We also have a recall >> mechanism for removing people from leadership position who >> have gotten out of hand, a mechanism that has never been used >> to the point of actually removing someone from office. > > Somewhat ironically, Nomcom regularly returns to office people > who regularly engage in offensive behavior. Yes, I had noticed that. Somewhat separate topic, but especially since the examples that various leaders set may be more important than any amount of instruction about community norms, the inability or unwillingness to understand these issues, observe the behavior, and deal decisively with it may be an even greater problem than others that have been more directly part of this discussion. >> FWIW, I also believe that we are far more often victim to >> consensus by attrition than to direct interference with the >> system or overt bad behavior. > > Possibly a worthy topic, but it's quite separate from the > continuing tolerance and even encouragement of grossly > unprofessional conduct. I would agree except that, when someone can "win" by exhibiting sufficient grossly unprofessional conduct to drive most of the people who disagree out of the discussion and then claiming consensus, it is one of the things that encourages that behavior. More generally, any time that someone exhibits unprofessional conduct and that produces the results that the person desired and does so without negative consequences to that person, it reinforces the bad conduct. > Again: > > > We have rules concerning acceptable behavior. We do not > enforce them. Perhaps they need strengthening, but we aren't > even using the ones we have. >... If I disagree about anything in your list, it is only because I suspect that there might be a counterexample or two to some of those cases. I even know of a few. On the other hand, I don't think a change from "never" to "hardly ever" changes anything of significant. >... > [*] This includes for offenses we class as harassment, taken > to the Ombud. To date, this has been an entirely ineffective > channel. Concur. At the same time, to the extent to which the intended model for dealing with harassment is to quietly educate and correct the bad behavior, the greatest successes would be the ones the community never hears about (see note [1] below). best, john [1] Technically, the problem people you are referring to are not "recidivists" and that may be exactly the problem. That term, as I understand it, would normally apply to someone who have been caught and punished already; the point you make below is that we never, or substantially never, punish anyone we do like (or, I'd suggest, have learned to tolerate, perhaps because of some offsetting advantages like having interesting things to say). This distinction is important as long as a lot of the community's thinking is tied to "try to get people to understand the consequences of their behavior and reform" rather that punishment and the hope that it would either correct or deter bad behavior. Independent of the IETF, that model does not have a good record of success.