--On Monday, September 2, 2019 17:08 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/2/19 4:11 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> 4) Don't: Act on your own initiative. Wait for a complaint
>> to be made and act on it. Complaints need to be public.
>> In other words, being outraged on the behalf of someone who
>> isn't actually bothered by a comment directed at them does
>> nothing but reduce the authority of the SAA. In other
>> words, don't substitute your opinion(s) for community
>> consensus.
>
> I might take slight exception to that one. If someone on
> the list is clearly behaving inappropriately (e.g. engaging in
> personal attacks) it's an offense to the entire IETF even if
> the specific target of those attacks doesn't complain about
> them.
Absolutely. However, personal attacks and similar things are,
IMO, better handled via the ombudsteam who have specific
training, tools to deal with such problems that are, IMO, much
more likely to be effective in educating and sorting out the
issues --thereby protecting the entire IETF-- than the tools
available to the SAAs. So, if that type of problem arises, not
only would I suggest that people approach the ombudsteam, but I
would suggest the SAAs do so as well: it would be completely
appropriate for them to go to the ombudsteam and say "this
person is engaging in personal attacks, harassing behavior, and
other bad acts that are within your purview, please do your
thing.
> At the same time, I emphatically object to "tone policing" by
> the SAA or other IETF leadership as being both arbitrary and
> counterproductive to IETF's purpose, and consider it an abuse
> of power when it happens.
Here I mostly agree with Melinda. That particular term has
taken on special meanings (whether you are familiar with them or
accept them or not) and is as much of a problem as the behavior
to which you are objecting. If I were to comment on one of
your suggestions by calling you are jerk (which, for the record,
I don't think you are and wouldn't do), that is a problem
because it is abusive behavior and a personal attack, regardless
of what anyone thinks of my "tone" (whatever that means). If I
were to describe a particular proposal as the stupidest idea I
have ever heard, I hope someone would privately explain to me
why that sort of terminology and classification doesn't help
move discussions forward and would do so even if I carefully
avoided any explicit reflection on the intrinsic intelligence of
the person who proposed it. I don't think that is about "tone".
YMMD, but I don't think that trying to move in the direction of
categories and categories and treating behavior as acceptable or
not depending on how the categories are defined helps any of us.
Finally, I do believe that, when someone accepts a leadership
position, they should understand, not only that transparency and
accountability go with the job, but that their actions may be
scrutinized more carefully and more often than typical IETF
participants. That doesn't mean that they should be treated as
if they volunteered to be abused, but criticism of leadership
decisions is not, a priori, an attack and, as you suggested
elsewhere, we should be extremely cautious that our evolving
mechanisms to promote a community that operates with a higher
degree of respect for each other do not become mechanisms for
suppressing criticism or dissenting opinions.
best,
john
