On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:35 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 09:59 -0400 Russ Housley
<housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 20:44 -0400 Alissa Cooper
> <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to
>> use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language
>> that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC
>> 3005. Repeated use of unprofessional language may be deterring
>> others from voicing their opinion for fear of being
>> disrespected. It is important that everyone in the community
>> feels comfortable enough to express their own views on the
>> IETF discussion list if they choose to do so.
>> ...
>
> Alissa:
>
> Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone
> does worry me. I believe the tone is keeping others from
> voicing their opinion, and that it is important that everyone
> feel comfortable enough to express their own view on this list.
Russ,
I've read the subsequent discussion but I think yours might be
the best note to respond specifically to, so am doing so. In my
long note on this subject, I tried to avoid expressing a strong
opinion about what Mike said in the message Alissa cites.
Personally, I would have preferred that he express himself
somewhat differently. However, probably like most others who
have been around the IETF and contributed to its technical work
for a long time, I've had my ideas ridiculed and have been
insulted and demeaned by people from IETF's history who were
masters of the arts of insults and invective. While I have
never learned to like being insulted, demeaned, or harassed and
don't expect others to either, I think it is reasonable to
expect that the IETF leadership and designated functionaries
(SAAs and IETF Chairs both included) will try to avoid being too
easily offended or outraged even when they are (quite
reasonably) trying to protect others who might feel
uncomfortable expressing their own views in what they might
perceive as a hostile environment.
However, I am concerned about two aspects of this issue that may
be quite separate and that impact, respectively, whether or not
people feel free to express their views and whether it is
considered reasonable to question "leadership" or "management"
decisions.
(1) When a comment like Mike's --which would rank as extremely
mild in any catalogue of abusive and unprofessional behavior in
the IETF, not that relationship justifies it-- gets the amount
and level of attention it has gotten, one possible effect is the
presumably-desired one of making others feel more secure about
expressing their own views. Two others, at least equally
likely IMO, are convincing someone who is contemplating speaking
up that saying something unpopular or disapproving will get them
attacked and thereby convincing them to be silent instead and
convincing the person being criticized for their style or tone
that it just isn't work trying to comment on that issue, or IETF
issues generally, any more. That clearly isn't desirable either.
Getting people people stop and think about whether they're being unprofessional is like the whole point of having a code of conduct and enforcing it. The clearer we make our norms, the easier the decision will be for the would-be contributor.
--Richard
(2) It has been mentioned by others, but I've very concerned
that, when someone has tried to ask questions about what
occurred and why, and has to ask them repeatedly because he or
she isn't getting clear answers, that there is the appearance
that some comment is seized on as an excuse to push back against
and condemn the question-asking. In terms of discouraging
people from speaking freely and expressing their own views
(and/or questioning the behavior of those in authority), that is
about as bad as it gets, whether that was the intent of the
remarks or not. I am reminded of a nasty children's "game" in
which party A tries to stay within whatever rules have been set
by trying to provide party B to respond in a way that violates
those rules and then demands that party B be punished for that.
In other contexts, party A is called "the bully" and party B
"the victim".
best,
john
