Dear Ted, On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:42:18AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > When person A consents to receiving communication in a specific style > > from person B, it doesn't mean that person C, D and E who observe the > > communication agreed to person's B conduct towards person A. Perhaps > > Crocker's Rules have value in private communication between consenting > > adults, but not in a public forum. We can't know how conduct in context > > of Crocker's affects person C, D, and E or even discourages them from > > participating. We have to be careful when making assumptions. > > I don’t entirely disagree with you, Job. And yet at the same time > there is an essential problem here, and it doesn’t do to paper it > over. > > Here is the problem: the IETF has long had a culture that is > consistent with what I guess we can call Crocker’s rule. Your observation surprises me, because that has never been my perception. > That is, we tend not to engage in self-censorship. I respectfully disagree, I believe there have been milions of instances where IETFers have deleted and not-yet-send emails because they realized that for one reason or another the message would not positively contribute. > [snip] > > So the question is, is it possible for us to do better? Yes, that is always the question. And I am cautiously optimistic, I believe IETF will not fade into obsolescence because IETF has a unique characteristic rarely is found in organisations: we have the ability to change our process, and we have even have a defined process to guide such process changes! Because we can change ourselves, change our culture, we can adapt to changing circumstances. > Can we do what worked for us in the past, but differently enough that > we successfully include speakers who would be silenced by harsh public > criticism? Even if harsh public critisism has worked in the past, I don't think the approach aligns with our current trajectory where it appears we are now more mindful of inclusivity and acknowledge diversity. > Is there a way to practice Crocker’s rule that doesn’t discourage > participation? In public context, I don't believe that is possible. On a positive note: I believe Marc's reference to Crocker's Rules was an attempt to express openness, a willingness to create space for other people to express themselves. Creating such space is a wonderful thing, but as we operate in public context we have to look for the smallest common denominator, however hard that may be. > The IETF can’t function that way. We have to practice. This is not > a social club. This doesn’t mean that we should be unkind to each > other: we should definitely do our best to be kind. But being kind > isn’t always being nice, and being nice can’t be the standard of > discourse that the IETF follows if we wish to continue to do good > work. I absolutely do not think that "being nice" and "good work" are mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. Some of the best work done was the result of people being nice to each other. I define being nice as demonstrating patience and acting with empathy towards each other. Kind regards, Job
