--On Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:18 -0600 Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> While I agree that Jabber/XMPP was largely a success case, I >> would have said that most such efforts don't get rude >> awakenings nearly often enough :-( > > [MB] That awakening was overly rude, if you recall. It went > well beyond letting them know how things are done at IETF. > [/MB] I do recall, although only vaguely because the tone of some of the discussions was more than sufficient to convince me that I wanted to spend my available IETF energy in other ways. In the IETF and in terms of affected individuals, that is often the least harmful effect of toxic behavior because, while it may damage us technically, the personal and psychological damage is minimized. On the other other hand, to the extent to which it drives people with other views off rather than trying to engage, mutually inform, and reach consensus, it is very bad for the IETF because it results in WGs who reach consensus among the survivors (those who have not been driven away) without full information and serious consideration or other options. Consensus by attrition, in turn, undermines the credibility of all of our standards and makes the quality of our work completely dependent on IETF Last Call. If is also the reason why I (and probably some others) make bad faces and rude noises every time someone says "we should just trust the WG" during either IETF Last Call or IESG discussions without clear evidence that the WG was open in practice (not just theory) and took all technically-grounded points of view seriously.. best, john
