Just to +1 a couple of points Job makes below.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:15 AM Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
These observations are not contradictory. There is a privileged group (largely the top posters to ietf@) who feel free to say whatever is on their mind. There is also a broader set of folks who do not. I can see how Ted arrived at his conclusion, given the bias in the data.
I would also challenge the phrase “self-censorship”. Adapting ones communications for an audience is not censorship, it’s effective communications. It can require that we think a bit before we speak, but that cost is offset by the benefit of a better functioning community.
> 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.
1000% this. I've seen this work out across a bunch of different technical communities, where there were strong disagreements, but also strong norms for respect.
It may be surprising to folks that open discussion and strong enforcement of community norms go together, but they're necessary partners. One person's speech can discourage another's, so if we really want to have an open community, we need to keep each other honest not just technically, but in terms of respect as well.
--Richard