ietf@ list as a proxy for community opinion (not)

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Sat, 14 Sep 2019 00:15:59 -0400



    On 9/13/19 10:15 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

    
          [0] To the extent to which one believes -- mistakenly, IMO -- that
traffic on the ietf@ list ought to be taken as a proxy for the views
of the community.

        
        ok.  i'll bite.  you have another suggestion that is not a closed space
with important people breathing each others' smoke?
      
    
    I would never claim, for a very many reasons, that the ietf@ list
      is a representative sample of community views, and nobody should
      interpret it that way.
    At the same time, as long as even outliers and those viewed as
      anti-social are able to post their opinions there, there's reason
      to have some confidence that a broad spectrum of views is
      represented, rather than say, just the views of the leaders or
      those allowed to decide which messages are suitable.
    
    
      This is something we're going to need to deal with at some point -
some number of community participants have indicated that they do
not subscribe to ietf@ because of the volume/tone/low signal-to-
noise ratio.  Those are people who are part of the community and
not participating here.  We have never made an explicit decision
to discount the views of people who can't/won't tolerate this
mailing list but it's effectively what we're doing, I think.
    
    Of course, those aren't the only views being discounted.   The
      views of those who are uncomfortable with pushing back against
      authority (likely because of social conditioning that protects
      power structures whether or not they serve the good) are also
      being discounted.
    I don't want to dismiss the problem you're citing.   But it seems
      to me that in such a large and diverse group there will inherently
      be some differences of opinion and conflict.  And so many people
      are "uncomfortable" with conflicting views, that avoiding
      discomfort is probably not an appropriate goal.   Indeed, at least
      for technical decisions, it seems that IETF's very job is to
      expose such conflicts and find ways to resolve them, work around
      them, and/or compromise, rather than sweep such conflicts under a
      rug in the name of comity.   

      
      So IETF absolutely needs people who will speak up when they're
      uncomfortable, even if their voices shake (literally or
      metaphorically), whatever the reason.   And part of the reason for
      people being uncomfortable when they speak up will inevitably be
      that they are frightened of violating social convention, "rocking
      the boat", dreading pushback from others.

    
      I don't know if that's the problem that EKR has in mind but I do
think that it's one reason that the while the views expressed here
are basically definitive, in terms of IETF process, they don't
necessarily reflect the actual views of the community.  (Maybe
someone is willing to argue that that the people who remove themselves
are randomly distributed with respect to the community but I
seriously hope not).
    
    As said above, certainly not a representative sample.   That's
      part of why we make decisions by rough consensus rather than
      voting.   

    
    Keith