On 9/2/19 7:02 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
Let's not get hung up on the term. If the term "tone policing" is
ambiguous I'm fine with using a different term. But it's a bit tricky
though, because I've seen so many attacks on speakers with no more
justification than "tone" cited. What would you call it?
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".
I don't think those examples are about tone either, and neither do I
think they're representative of the justifications for the attacks on
speakers' "tone" that I've seen.
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.
IMO, we need much more precise reasons than "tone" or even "harshness"
to justify sanctioning speakers or even to justify distracting away from
their contributions.
As far as I can tell, attacks on speakers' "tone" are nearly always either:
(a) a way to distract from the speaker's message for political purposes
(can't refute their technical argument - just get them frustrated then
attack their "tone"!), and/or
(b) a way for the attackers to justify their prejudice against the speaker.
If a speaker is really behaving badly, there will be a better
justification for sanctioning them than "tone".
So basically the attacks on tone need to stop. They are not only
counterproductive to IETF's work, they are a form of abuse.
Keith
p.s. A bit more toward the definition Melinda cited - a hell of a lot
of people in this world have had to deal with abuse. If they see the
world in sharp relief because of it, that's not their fault, and
sometimes it's even to their advantage because they see things that
other people miss. Criticisms of others' tone has the (often
unintentional, I hope) effect of exacerbating the abuse that others have
suffered. And using tone as an excuse to ignore or distract from
their contributions is just adding insult to injury. And people don't
need to know whether or not a speaker has been subject to abuse - it's
none of their business.
