I've been wondering for days whether I should comment on these threads, and whether any benefit can be gained by my commenting. [John, this response isn't directly in response to your email, it was just a convenient point to reply.]
Probably in contrast to most other participants in this thread, I still regard myself as a relatively IETF newcomer (first meeting was IETF 93, and I've attended the majority since). So, I am going to give my perceptions of this thread as a relative newcomer in the hope that it might be useful input to the wider community. My comments are not intended to offend anyone, and I apologise in advance in any offence is taken. [But perhaps it also worth noting that nobody is forced to read an email, anyone can stop reading at time, delete the email, suppress the thread, etc.]
I have not had time to read all the messages, perhaps not even the majority of them. I, and I expect many others, do not have the time to do this, or perhaps instead wish to spend their limited time on other things.
My principle view is that technical criticism is vitally important when engineering the complex systems that we all work on. My perception is that the majority of folks actively participating in IETF do so because they care deeply about the technology we work on, and are trying to reach the best solution (for some definition of best - I suspect that differences in this definition may be part of the reason why discussions can become so heated at times).
But in my personal experience, I would say that I am more receptive to someone's feedback if it is given in a polite and constructive way. Given that I prefer a constructive critique of my work rather than comments that are unduly terse or aggressively negative, then I strive (but don't necessary always succeed) to also give feedback in a positive way. I would go further and say that the people that I find most inspirational at IETF are those experienced folk who are knowledgeable, welcoming and supportive of newcomers, and receptive to new ideas.
Conversely, I acknowledge that some individuals tend to give very direct and terse feedback. When I was a newcomer I initially found this feedback to be combative and abrasive, which seemed to slow down progress, so I question whether this really is a more efficient way to get to a good technical solution. Admittedly, over time, I gained a level of respect for some of those individuals, and probably think that their style of feedback is more a personality trait than intended as a personal attack, so I tolerate the direct and terse feedback from these individuals to the extent that I would actively seek/request their feedback.
I do question whether airing these grievances on the main IETF mailing list is the best place for this. My impression is that they don't paint IETF in a particularly positive light. Note, I'm not advocating that these issues shouldn't be discussed in public, but perhaps there could be an "ietf-constructive-feedback" mail alias that these sorts of discussions could be directed to. Everyone still has the same opportunity to comment openly and publicly, but it prevents these discussions from dominating over the other important discussions on the main ietf mailing list.
In a similar vein, I also ponder the motives of the questions asked at the "Open Mic" sessions in the plenary. Sometimes the questions seem to be raising a valid point that is important to be discussed openly, but other times they come across as older/experienced folk having a public dig at the IESG or IAB for something that hasn't gone quite as it should. Again, I question whether the most effective way of giving this type of feedback is in the plenary, or whether a private email (and perhaps short meeting) with some members of the appropriate group might be a more effective way of getting the message across in a slightly less combative way, at least as a first effort.
On a positive note, I look forward to seeing everyone in Montreal, and for those attending the social event, I would be happy to debate the merits of direct vs polite criticism over a beer or two at the social event.
Kind regards,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: 04 July 2019 16:28
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.
Hi.
I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but I'm having tremendous difficulty following all of the messages in this thread, much less the thread about the happenings surrounding the RFC Editor function. That includes the side-thread about, e.g., whether one can describe, with facts and careful reasoning, an idea or action as stupid without insulting the intelligence of whomever was advocating it. Many,
many messages. If only to reduce the odds of re-inventing and
repeating what has been said before, I'm trying to read everything in a thread before I start a response but it means I am running hours, sometimes days, behind.
It is especially problematic because I'm also trying to find time to get some technical work done that much of the IETF seems to think it important as long as _someone else_ puts in the time to understand the issues and do the work [1]. I've has it suggested to me off list that maybe most of those participating actively in the discussions either don't have technical work to do or have too much time on their hands. I'd rather think that priorities (and levels of support for IETF work) are different, but I do suggest, as Randy Bush has pointed out a couple of times, maybe it would be better if people took a deep breath, let some of these discussions sink in, and actual get some technical work done, including trying to finish I-Ds before Monday's posting deadline and then actually reading enough of those drafts to make IETF 106 more productive.
Or perhaps, if these topics are really important enough, we should call off the IETF 105 agenda and devote the meeting to
them, without conflicts and one day per topic. I understand
the logistical problems with trying to do that in one large room but perhaps smaller group parallel sessions and discussions on the same subject (with people allocated at random or when rooms fill up) and then summaries of conclusions would work even better.
In any event, it is probably worth noting and remembering that these very long threads on the IETF list get participation from a very small fraction of the IETF community. Whether others tune out after looking at one message or a dozen, we aren't hearing from them. Because these topics have effects on the entire IETF, how it works, and how it is perceived, real IETF consensus --across the entire spectrum of IETF contributors and other materially affected parties-- is important if decisions are to be made. It is difficult and perhaps impossible to draw inferences about consensus across the IETF when only a handful (or two) of people are participating. It is even closer to impossible if those people participating in a way that discourages others from getting involved, however unintentional (and respectful) the mechanisms that are being used.
A more substantive note or two follow, but I believe the above is important and it saddens me that it didn't come from someone
in "the leadership".
john
[1] I'm not trying to be cryptic, just to keep the above short.
The very high-level summary of the topic area might be best
described as a set of questions. Do any of you, or your
organizations, colleagues, or customers, use a language that cannot be written properly in ASCII characters and even occasionally want to write it properly while using the Internet?
(Note that list of languages includes English.) Would you, or your organizations, colleagues, or customers find it helpful to be able to use identifiers, user names, or other descriptors or mnemonics that are not tied to English? Do you think it is important that everyone have confidence that strings that should compare equal do so and that ones that shouldn't, don't? Do you understand that the problems the other questions imply are hard and require either significant digging in or suggest that the
IETF should publicly give up and accept the consequences? If
your answer to any of those questions is "yes", why are you not digging in personally and why are you allowing the IESG to essentially ignore the topics, not answer questions about how to progress documents, and to set up mechanisms and then neglect them sufficiently to ensure failure?
