On 7/3/19 6:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
I can't
immerse myself in this discussion for more than about 15
seconds without thinking about the many online communities I
have seen implode and dissolve in a pool of anger and
recrimination. A tendency for rhetoric to become polemic and
then spiral out of control seems an unavoidable inbuilt
feature of the medium. Therefore, I'm generally in favor of
proactive attempts to throw water on flames before the
community is placed at risk.
I don't disagree. We've all seem flame wars get out of hand and
rarely do they produce good results.
I hope I'm not seen as promoting flame wars. What I'm trying to
promote is freedom to raise technical issues, even when people
fear (as is often the case) that doing so might be seen as
impolite.
If you
think you are a victim of "political correctness", please
consider that the people you're mad at probably think they're
preserving community health.
I hope we're all trying to preserve community health.
As I see it, there are two sets of concerns:
- One is that people might be discouraged from speaking freely
and honestly because they see the environment as hostile.
- The other is that people might be discouraged from speaking
freely and honestly because others are telling them that they're
being hostile.
IMO both sets of concern are valid. In a sense, they both have a
similar undesirable effect of discouraging valuable technical
input, with consequent harm to IETF's ability to do work.
(I also note that both lines of arguments can be (mis)used to
deliberately suppress technical input.)
Where I disagree with some is with the idea that the right answer
is in everyone dumbing down their input to the least common
denominator of politeness, when (for example) some people's
notions of politeness (even in the US) include not challenging the
opinions of those viewed as "in authority".
Instead I think IETF needs explicit community standards for how to
express input, and standards for how to react to input that one
finds disagreeable. And I strongly suspect that such standards
should resemble Crocker's rules - though again, perhaps not in
such an extreme form. I certainly believe that one should
confine criticism to technical details and/or ideas (not people),
that criticism should be expressed in terms of what technical
problems would or might result, or in terms of who would be harmed
or disenfranchised by the result, and that participants should
avoid accusations of improper motive even when it seems to be the
case (as it sometimes does). So to cite a concrete example, one
should be able to call an idea stupid but not to call people
stupid. (If you don't like the word "stupid" suggest a better
one, but we need a way to express that concept.)
It's a pity
that "tone policing" has come to mean "attack a position you
disagree with based on whining about rudeness" because the
literal meaning of the phrase "tone policing" is something I'm
generally sympathetic with. Like any other kind of policing,
it can get out of control. But I think it's a necessary
activity.
In my experience (mostly outside of IETF but it's starting to
appear here too), "tone policing" basically amounts to "my
prejudices are more important/fair than your prejudices, so I have
a right to use my prejudice as justification to suppress your
speech and/or actions because I view them as prejudiced because of
my own prejudices".
There are milder versions of "tone policing" ("tone feedback"?)
that I do sometimes find helpful if it reduces the potential for
flame wars.
I've been
told to shut up and be less rude in at least two IETF WGs and
you know what, the people telling me were right.
It can happen to anybody :)
Keith
