I feel that some take the call to be professional and civil to mean only missives of positivity are allowed. That is not what is being asked of us. To be blunt -- it's not what You say, it's how You say it. It is possible to be professional and civil and have a vigorous debate, and I believe that debate is not just accepted but encouraged. As a starting point, consider if the language in use is criticizing the proposal, or if it's criticizing the person. Calling an idea bad, or ugly, or harmful can be acceptable and valid criticisms; calling someone bad for their idea, or harmful for their idea is not. Even if someone continues to bring out bad or harmful ideas, it's more constructive to argue the merits (or lack thereof) than to point to a person and they never have good ideas. This is only a starting point. Developing some modicum of empathy for the people in the discussion goes further. Consider that the vast majority of us are not in this argument for truly malicious reasons, and rather try to at least consider where they are coming from. That doesn't mean agreeing or accepting their position, but it does mean acknowledging that is the position they are coming from and it is most often not to do harm for the sake of doing harm. In all this, I have deliberately not used the word polite. I find that word to be ambiguous; has different meanings for different people -- and even for different contexts. Professional and civil, while still vague, seem to me to have a more common meaning in our global society. - m&m Matthew A. Miller (speaking only as an individual) On 19/03/28 02:38, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:49 +0000 Lloyd Wood > <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> "In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems >> associated with a proposal, than to withhold such input for >> fear of seeming rude. It's even an obligation if the >> consequences seem important. Even if you don't believe you >> have the status necessary to question the judgment of that >> person. Even if you might be wrong. Even if your voice >> shakes" And even if it completely destroys your subsequent >> career prospects! > > Lloyd, > > I think you are conflating two different issues and I don't know > whether that is helpful or not. One of the things I've heard > much more in recent years than I did a decade or more ago -- > despite getting to far smaller percentages of meetings -- is > fear that saying something or disagreeing with a particular > position will result in retaliation from "the leadership" or > particular members of it. Sometimes those fears are expressed > in terms of the IETF (e.g., being blocked from doing anything > that requires leadership (even WG leadership) decisions or > permission) and sometimes it is more general (like having one's > career or career prospects ruined. Whether the concerns are > legitimate or not, their existence is a threat to the IETF and > its ability to recruit and retrain people and get work done. > > I suggest that a public statement about a zero-tolerance policy > toward such retaliation might be helpful, but probably only if > there were a realistic possibility of its being enforced. I > have no idea if the ombudsteam would consider evidence of > retaliatory actions to fall within their remit even though a > threat to retaliate almost certainly would. In theory, the > recall mechanism would be one way to enforce such a policy but > only if people were not too fearful to use it and only if it had > a reasonable chance of being effective within a reasonable > period of time (parts of that issue are the subject of a > different thread on this list). > > But none, or almost none, of that has to do with how politely or > impolitely an opinion is expressed or action taken. > > best, > john >
