Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:59:25 -0400

    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.  

    I've been holding my "tongue" - as I've only ever been involved
      in IETF peripherally (mostly during my days, long ago, working on
      stuff at BBN, later when doing policy work).  But this is, after
      all a public list, and IETF is open to all to show up (Internet
      governance has long been my go-to example of how one might scale
      up town meeting style governance).

    But I have to jump in and agree with this, strongly.  As someone
      who's on all too many lists, and hosts a bunch - it does seem like
      arguments over style, increasingly dominate discussions of
      substance, and all too often unpopular opinions are jumped on, in
      the name of "your tone may hurt someone's feelings" (less
      commonly, someone saying directly "you offended ME").  To the
      point that I've been considering that calls for censorship or
      banning - of topics, of terms, of people - is the only offense
      deserving of censorship or expulsion. 

    I'm also reminded of my days at BBN, where design review was
      viewed as a competitive sport (at least the ones I was party to -
      from both sides).  It may not be "fun" having one's designs picked
      to shreds, with glee - but it sure benefited the ultimate work
      product, and was generally appreciated (if not completely
      "enjoyed") by the one presenting a design.  

    As a sometimes author, I'm also reminded that the good author
      welcomes brutal review, comment and editing (an editor who worries
      about offending an author by their edits is a worthless editor).

    Might I suggest that, if not "brutality," then "vigorous" comment
      is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.  And that, when it
      comes to concerns about some people not speaking up because of
      being "attacked" - perhaps the response is to encourage people to
      develop thicker skins; IMHO, meekness is not a positive
      personality trait in technical work.  After all, in theory, we're
      all competent, professional, adults here - criticism, even
      impolite & brutal criticism, adds value (assuming that it's
      substantive, not ad hominum or otherwise content-free).

        Therefore,
          I'm generally in favor of proactive attempts to throw water on
          flames before the community is placed at risk.  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 can't help but think that "be conservative in what you do, be
      liberal in what you accept from others" applies even more to
      online discussion than to protocol implementation.  Beyond that,
      can't we take the discussions about tone & style outside?
    Respectfully (sort of),
    Miles Fidelman

    -- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. 
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. 
In our lab, theory and practice are combined: 
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown