Re: tone policing

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:25:08 -0400



    On 9/9/19 7:15 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:

    
      On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 08:43,
        Joel M. Halpern wrote:

      
        Dan, you asked for specific
          examples of speech whose acceptability has 

        
        changed.

        
        A clear and simple example is
          personal attacks.  It is no longer 

        
        acceptable (or at least, we try
          to make it impossible) to respond to an 

        
        argument by saying "you do not
          know what you are talking about, so we 

        
        should ignore your input." 
          Other even more extreme and personal 

        
        comments were once accepted in
          this community.   they are not accepted 

        
        any longer.

        
      Like for example this thing, which
        I'm not particularly proud of:

      
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/zPoaR1ezRWRs4ji9rbojXLuomFE

      
      The whole experience around there
        nearly turned me off the IETF entirely, largely due to things
        like this:

      
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imap5/4bg3IkTTJvCAcr8aro5wCyNjZSA

      
      ... and I know Mark's not around
        to defend himself here, so I can only point out the flaws in my
        own communication style there and the missed opportunities to
        progress work because I was too busy butting heads.

      
      I'm sad I never got to meet Mark
        in person.  I think a lot of the value of in-person meetings is
        the sitting together and looking into each other's eyes and
        realising that the other person isn't a moron and isn't
        deliberately trying to break the world!

      
    I remember Mark and his strident communications style, but I
      never took offense at it even when I was a newcomer.   It was
      always clear to me that his primary concern was technical
      soundness.   He was uncompromising because he worked hard at this,
      and I suspect, also because he believed that technical soundness
      required that kind of dedication.
    He had strong opinions but I personally never saw him as
      obstructionist.   (Others may remember him differently; I was
      never active for instance in trying to update IMAP, which was his
      baby.)

    
    I believe Mark's contributions were immense and we are all still
      benefiting from them.   Not because his ideas were perfect,
      certainly not because his code was anywhere nearly perfect, not
      because his communications style was diplomatic, but because of
      his dedication to soundness and his willingness to work.
    IMO we need people in IETF like Mark.    Perhaps not in
      communications style, but in work ethic and striving for
      excellence.   I'd hate to see contributors like him be discouraged
      because people insisted he be less than candid.

    
    Keith