On 7/3/19 6:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Of course I'm aware that we used
consensus-based decision-making. But the appearance of consensus is
misleading if people aren't permitted to openly express their views,
even if they do so in a suboptimal manner.
Consensus is a process, and it takes effort and craftsmanship
to build it. Brutality and the argumentation style you and others
are advocating would be a pretty good example of a consensus anti-
pattern.
At no time have I advocated brutality, and it's a gross
mischaracterization of the argumentation style that I personally
prefer. But your current argumentation style is insulting beyond almost
anything I've seen in my nearly 30 year history with IETF.
You'd prefer the appearance of consensus obtained from a group that's
hostile to technical input? Real consensus requires openness to input,
even input that's unsettling.
And I know you've heard this before but I'm going to
repeat it because I think it's a huge problem: harshness is going
to stop people from expressing their views, as well, and it's
really not at all clear to me that their participation is less
valuable than participation by people who feel muzzled by an
expectation of courtesy.
What I have consistently found for my whole life is that it's essential
to stand up to abusive people, and people who use lies and intimidation
to suppress input and distort facts. You seem to be speaking out in
favor of such tactics, maybe even employing them yourself. I prefer
to believe that you've simply misunderstood me or have a warped view of
who I am and what I stand for, but no amount of trying to correct your
impression seems to work. So it's hard to see it as anything other
than abuse.
Keith
