|
Hi -
I'm going to top post because replying
to this line by line isn't really the best way to dispose of this
part of the thread. And as someone noted, if I remained silent it
might be taken as implicit approval of what I consider a
unsupportable take on "stupidity" as described below.
As other's have noted, its possible for
smart people to do stupid things. It's even possible to get a
stupid result (or " this stupidity") with many smart people doing
perfectly reasonable things. Note that I'm not claiming this is
the current case.
In the instant case, this was a
stupidity because it was a completely foreseeable result
that was completely avoidable, but the result had many
many parents:
1) The community for not more carefully
constraining the IAB's assertion of authority over the RFC
process.
2) The IAB for delegation of said
authority to the RSOC without carefully constraining its exercise.
3) The IAB for not paying attention to
the result of the RFC++ bof
4) The IAB for replacing the majority
of the RSOC post the RFC++ bof without input from the RSE, and in
apparent violation of one of the guiding principles of the RSOC -
that of maintaining continuity from year to year.
5) The community for not yelling a lot
louder and longer when (4) happened.
6) The community, IAB and RSOC for not
appreciating the value of a world class professional
editor/publisher to the continued excellence of the RFC series,
and for not expressing that appreciation in the form of
professional deference and independence rather than what appears
to have been more of a "you contractor, me boss"* model.
7) The RSOC for ... well - you know.
8) The LLC for not paying better
attention to the relationship between contractor and contractee.
I'm sure there are others.
To finish up - I appreciate that the
Sargent at Arms has to walk a fine line here, but I don't think
this is even close. Again, I'd appreciate it if in the future we
follow the general contract and first have private
conversations. You'll have plenty of time afterward to make
your explicit disapproval clear if necessary.
Also I'd really appreciate it if you
don't attribute a particular emotion to my persistence with this
set of discussions - it's yet another form of demeaning behavior.
You attributed "frustration", and another I* attributed "upset" to
me. What I actually am is "sad" at the state of affairs and
"disappointed" in the various folk that caused this stupidity to
occur somewhat including myself. Feel free to use either of those
words in future correspondence.
Mike
*About a year ago, shortly after the
RFC++ bof, I had a conversation with one of the I* who I will not
name about the disconnect between what I though the RFC editor job
was and what I was seeing the I* push. The phrase "she's just a
contractor" is a direct quote from that conversation.
On 6/28/2019 7:22 PM, Benjamin Kaduk
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:58:52PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:On 6/28/2019 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:Hi Mike, On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:38:21PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:On 6/28/2019 11:28 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:Usually a situation developed because some process was flawed or due to a lack alignment between responsibility & accountability, etc. This also means granting a bit of trust in colleagues and acknowledging that everyone is doing their best to achieve what they think will best serve the situation/platform/org/etc. This can be hard to do, but it is a healthy step that can make an org stronger.Hi Jason - The problem is that whatever trust I (we?) might want to grant in this case is diminished by past actions such as the rfcplusplus bof, and in the current instance, an explanation of behavior by the RSOC that doesn't meet the smell test. This also begs the question of what were they actually trying to achieve and whether we the community believe those to be worthy goals. A few of the other questions that should be asked in the post-mortem of this stupidity* is "Why did the RSOC find it necessary to take the actions it took without any community input whatsoever?" and "Did the IAB have any pre-knowledge of the actions that were about to be taken?" Mike * With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of malign intent open. Feel free to come up with your own terms.I appreciate that you have put thought into your phrasing. However, this term nonetheless fails to meet the bar for professional conduct required by RFC 3005. We must treat each other with courtesy, even when we find events to be disconcerting. Making observations about the situation is reasonable; attacking community members is out of bounds. Thanks, Ben for the Sergeant-at-ArmsWith respect - no. Please read above more closely. The situation is stupid. "post-mortem of this stupidity". If you choose to attribute stupidity to a community member so be it.With respect, I have a hard time seeing how there can be stupidity without some*one* being stupid -- inanimate objects don't have motive or intelligence. Especially so when seen alongside talk of "intent", which to me at least seems clearly tied to one or more individuals' actions. Feel free to tell me more about how I'm wrong (but that's probably better off-list -- I don't anticipate an IETF working group that handles the subtleties of the English language).In any event, the general model is to first have a private discussion with the prospective offendee describing what you found offensive and why before public sanction. Please try and do all of us that courtesy the next time.That is the general model, yes, and one that is followed most of the time. There is a countervailing force, though, in the form of the risk that observers will see silence as tacit approval. As Sergeant-at-Arms, I'm tasked with keeping the discussion forum a professional environment for all participants, and sometimes that involves sending a public signal about what behavior is expected. I sympathsize with your frustration and I want the same answers that you do, but this is a hard conversation for the community to be having, and adding into the mix remarks that come off as personal attacks will just make it harder. -Ben
|
