On 9/2/19 8:19 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 3 Sep 2019, at 10:11 am, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/2/19 8:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to unprofessional behaviour -- which *is* bad behaviour.
No, "unprofessional behavior" is not inherently bad behavior, for reasons already cited. Too often, "professsional" is just another word that's used to justify abuse.
An observation: you seem to be very focused on a specific kind of abuse. Is it really abusive to have the way you communicate challenged?
It can be. If it's used as a way to distract from technical
contributions, absolutely it is. If the accusation is based on nothing
more than the complainer's prejudice or imagination about what the
speaker's intent was or what the speaker might have been thinking,
absolutely it is.
Having said that, constructive private feedback can be helpful
sometimes, but it has to be used carefully. Such feedback needs to be
specific enough that the speaker understands what the complainer is
complaining about - not anywhere nearly as vague as a complaint about
"tone". The feedback needs to be from someone whom the speaker has
reason to respect. Too often such feedback comes from people who are
in no position to be giving it. And it needs to be used sparingly.
But anytime someone takes it on themselves to say to someone "you're not
saying that right" there's a danger that it does more harm than good,
and it's as likely to be the complainer's fault as the speaker.
As stated before, the substance of a message should not be ignored because of its form, but the form can and should be criticised if it causes harm -- especially if that harm is in convincing others that they don't want to participate in the discussion.
I acknowledge that this problem exists, but we need to have more precise
standards than "tone" or "professional".
Also, there's a difference between "ignore it" and "don't sanction it" -- and again a difference between social sanctions and official ones.
If pushback against people for their "tone" has a chilling effect on IETF contributions, I have a problem with it. How can we make it acceptable in IETF to speak up against bad ideas if we demand that participants walk on eggshells?
Are you really equating considering how your words affect others as "walking on eggshells?"
No, I'm saying that when people attack others simply because they don't
like their words, without being specific as to what's wrong and what
problems it's causing, the speaker really has no idea as to how to use
that feedback. And yes, that's like walking on eggshells, particularly
when those doing the attacking are in positions of power (though it can
be abusive even if this is not the case). And it must be realized that
censorship in any form, even with more precise justification, is really
dangerous.
All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really
are harmful to IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify whatever prejudices they have.
I asked for examples. And, you must realise that the view that people are merely justifying prejudices cuts both ways...
I'd like to see examples too. Anything better than "tone" would be a
start.
Keith
