Subject: RE: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:51:11 -0700

I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent.

I think that Carl has fallen into an old rhetorical trap here. If the rules of a forum prohibit an accusation that you want to introduce the way to bypass it is to make a statement that is tantamount to the accusation but not the accusation. Then you wait for someone to allege that you have crossed the line, thus making the statement.

So please, if you see a repeated implication don't take the trouble to clarify it. The terms of civil debate have loopholes for good reason. I am just reading a report of a government official (I won't say which country) who has very clearly and deliberately lied, making a claim of a trend in a series of statistics that have clearly been deliberately (and clumsily) manipulated.

There is a repeated implication here that someone wants to become a martyr, why oblige?

Incidentally the implication that someone has lied is not ad-hominem. I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about ad-hominem arguments since a common criticism of trust systems and moderation systems is that they are essentially based on ad-hominem reasoning. The term has to be used with precision and there is a side condition that is not normally recognized.

It is possibly slander but not ad-hominem which is a logical fallacy of the form: A argues B, A is a bad person, therefore B is false. So an ad-hominem attack would be 'Todd Glassey believes that the NOMCON process needs reform, Todd Glassey is despicable, therefore there is no reason to change the NOMCON'.

In the case of the government official the implication that they have lied is an inescapable conclusion drawn from undisputed facts. Nor is an argument of the form 'A has lied', 'A is a member of government B', therefore 'Government B is untrustworthy'.

An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no fallacy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Malamud [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:57 PM
> To: Theodore Tso
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
> 
> Hi Ted -
> 
> I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment.
> But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard.
> 
> 1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has 
> lied to the IETF.  That is an ad hominen attack and goes well 
> beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list.
> 
> 2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process 
> works, they should do what we did when the system was put in 
> place: write a document and get consensus.  The IETF is all 
> about running code, and that includes "business processes."  
> An I-D is the first step.
> Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up 
> policy on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of 
> writing an
> I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list.
> 
> 3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge, 
> and other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify 
> as reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated 
> purpose of this mailing list.
> 
> I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to 
> take more active steps to keep discussion on the general 
> mailing list on track.  At the very least, discussants should 
> be actively enouraged to move their discourse to more 
> specialized mailing lists.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Carl
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> > > BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but 
> > > your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member  
> is what is 
> > > not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is 
> > > irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to 
> drive a Mack truck through.
> > 
> > Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the 
> IESG (they 
> > aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same 
> > time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this 
> thread have 
> > clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were 
> acting in 
> > good faith, and that no harm was done.
> > 
> > You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and 
> > strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. 
>  So if you 
> > do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, 
> being a bit 
> > more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to 
> probably serve 
> > your goals better than your current style of attacking people like 
> > Brian and other IESG members.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > 					- Ted
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:26:30 +0800

On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value  
> of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth  
> value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no  
> fallacy.

True. But I'm not sure I agree that this is what has happened here.

Personally, I don't think that Todd is a "despicable" person, but I  
do find his tactics a bit tiresome. Like Carl, I resent the  
insinuation that the chair of the IETF has lied to his constituency.  
I have for a long time had a discussion with him regarding the use of  
mailing lists and the fact that they have intended topics. Like him,  
I have some experience talking with lawyers but am not a lawyer. I  
quickly tire of his bullying.

Bottom line, I would welcome the sergeant-at-arms addressing the  
issue in the manner prescribed.

That said, the nomcom process is imperfect. I have reason to know: I  
chaired the nomcom in 1993, was a liaison from the IAB to in 2002,  
and am a liaison from the ISOC Board to this year. We have tried to  
deal with the imperfections in it several times, and in the end wind  
up with something that mostly works but has imperfections because it  
depends on people, and people are imperfect. It depends on the  
quality of the people we put on it, and in fact I think we have  
consistently put on the nomcom people of quality who have sought,  
however imperfectly, to make the right things happen for the  
community. And I think many of them have felt a bit abused by the  
community later on. I wish that the community would treat its  
servants better; they certainly try to treat it better.

Todd would like to see the membership of the IETF formally defined  
and used to support voting. That's a reasonable thing to do, if the  
community wants to go there. The big problem in it is that much of  
the community doesn't know the individuals in it other than those  
they have worked with, so voting is essentially a popularity contest.  
We have seen that on the ISOC Board, back when there was a direct  
vote for its membership, and we have seen it in other SDOs. The  
antics of one campaigning for a position can be amusing to watch, and  
the fact that people are forced to campaign leads people trying to do  
technical work to ask "did s/he say that because they think it's  
pertinent, or because they are campaigning for a position?". I find  
the campaigning fairly destructive.

I may be mistaken, and if so someone will no doubt correct me. I  
don't believe that we do the nomcom process because we don't want to  
vote. I think we do it because we don't want to deal with the  
processes of campaigning, and because we want better leadership than  
a popularity contest would give us. Since the nomcom does a fairly  
serious investigation of the people it proposes, I think it is more  
likely to give us the type and quality of people that our processes  
depend on. Whatever its imperfections, I think it is a better process  
than a voting process would be in the IETF context.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:49:49 +0200

> I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent.

As Phill knows, and in fact has in common with me, I grew up professionally
while providing services to experimental physicists up to Nobel prize
level. And one of the things you acquire in that environment is a thick
skin for dealing with strong-willed and highly intelligent people who
don't always think twice before they speak or write.
(Read 'Nobel Dreams' by Gary Taub for a good introduction to this topic.)

So, frankly, I am pretty much immune to personal insults, ad hominem arguments,
and libels - receiving all of which seems to be part of the IETF Chair's job
description.

That being said, Phill is completely correct - we should look beyond
the rudeness in various messages for the objective content or the fallacy.

However, that doesn't mean we should tolerate rudeness, or any
other unprofessional behaviour. I recommend everybody to re-read
RFC 3005 and RFC 3184, and also to consider whether the 'delete' key
isn't the best one to use.

    Brian