On 3 Jul 2019, at 18:29, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
Keith, if I understand this correctly, you have been arguing (a la
Crocker's Rules) that it is important that people be able to criticize
ideas in an unvarnished way and that listeners need to get over any
personal insult they might feel and instead focus on the content of
those criticisms. And yet here, instead of focusing on Melinda's actual
criticisms, you focus on your interpretation of her "characterization"
of your position[*], criticize her "argumentation style", and are
"insulted" (and earlier, "belittled" by her pointing out that what you
say might be in conflict with consensus-based decision making). That's a
pretty impressive level of irony.
([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that is
harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which seems
pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)
So, getting to the substance of both of your comments rather than on how
they were presented:
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.
You've very much missed Melinda's point. 7282 not only points out that
it is important to listen to all technical points, but it also makes
quite clear that a failure of consensus can also come from people
"giving up". As Melinda says:
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
If I am participating in a WG and happen to have a showstopper technical
point, but it is shouted down by someone who, on the grounds of "being
brutally honest", is simply being an ass, I might very well decide that
it is no longer worth my energy and walk away from the noxious
environment. And if nobody happened to really understand my point
because it was drowned out by all of the "brutal honesty", the consensus
has failed miserably, as will the protocol being produced.
So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the "brutal
honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing important
technical points that might be lost because others in the group won't
tolerate that "brutal honesty".
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.
I think it is you, Keith, who has misunderstood Melinda's point,
accusing her of ill motives instead of presuming there is a good point
in there and attempting to look for it. I would suggest a reset on your
part, and you attempting to understand the point being made instead of
trying to be so "brutally honest" with her.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
