Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:30:30 -0500 (EST)

> From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>

    > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:37:13PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

    >> Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid
    >> ad-hominem argument?

    > There are no valid _ad hominem_ arguments. 

I suspect that he meant was 'can we have a method for properly classifying
things into "ad hominem attacks" and "not ad hominem attacks"'.

    > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>

    > It is of course perfectly valid from a logical point of view to ask
    > what the experience of someone is before they make organizational
    > proposals but it is still bloody rude.

You mean, it's rude to ask what someone's experience is?

If so, that's odd: I myself found it 'bloody rude' (well, actually, I'd use a
slightly different term, but hey...) for someone to make suggestions on how
to improve our meeting process when they have really no experience of it.

	Noel

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:38:52 -0800

> to improve our meeting process when they have really no experience of it.

You are free to have any reaction you want, about the person or what 
they say.

You are free to have reactions that are well-founded or not.

However you should not be free to voice whatever you want publicly, in a 
professional environment that expects professional demeanor.

In such an environment there need to be constraints on the content of 
speech, and an essential constraint is to largely refrain from ad 
hominems.  Or at least to be extremely careful about introducing 
comments or questions about a speaker.

This does not require a sterile communications environment.  It's 
possible to conform to this constraint while still having a personable 
community.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:55:09 -0800

Hi Noel,
>to improve our meeting process when they have really no experience of it.

There is a message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00074.html 
I personally do not think that it is a good idea to belittle or 
humiliate a person.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:07:19 -0500

+1

>      ...

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:29:59 -0500

> to improve our meeting process when they have really no experience of it.

You are of course free to propose any change you like. But the standard has
always been an opinion and a keyboard.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:35:57 -0800 (PST)

I find myself compelled to agree with both Noel and Kent here. The question may
have been posed offensively - I take no position on that - but in matters
like this past experience is hugely relevant.

Like it or not, not every issue that comes up can be decided on the basis of
crisp technical arguments. (In fact it really seems to me that are less
able to decide things purely on technical merit as time goes on.)

And it's not just internal IETF matters at issue here: If, say, someone makes a
statement about the probable impact of some technical choice on the future
deployment of a protocol, people have every right to know if that statement is
based on past deployment experience or is nothing but guesswork.

And yes, this puts newcomers at something of a disadvantage because of their
lack of experience. And also note that when such questions are asked, the
answers can be disconcerting. You don't know what experience someone has until
you ask, and sometimes you find they have substantive experience that makes
them the expert, not you.

				Ned

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:04:38 -0500

Yes, there are often cases where experience and proven judgment matter
tremendously, but in this case the question was resolved _more_ simply by a
factual response, even without taking into account the original proposer's
experience level.

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:52:11 -0500

> like this past experience is hugely relevant.

Borrowing a note from Ned's comments, I am honesty confused by
those who think Lloyd's question was inappropriate.  I hope we
can, at least temporarily, ignore both the tone some of us have
read into that question and whether it meets the criteria for ad
hominem argumentation or not.  

So, for those who think the question was inappropriate, a
comparative question about the following two entirely
hypothetical cases:

 Case 1: You have proposed a change to the way IETF
	operates its meetings and have asserted that your change
	would help things work much better.  Can you explain the
	experience you have had with those meetings on which you
	base your suggestion so it can help us evaluate whether
	to take it seriously?
	
 Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being
	reviewed in a WG does not work.  Have you implemented
	and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make
	that assertion?

I suggest that, if the second question is considered
inappropriate and prohibited, we are in big trouble.  I hope
there is general agreement on that subject.  But I'm having
trouble understanding why the two questions are different:  both
ask about experience and the basis for the suggestion or
comment.  If there is a difference, would someone please explain
it?

    john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:06:17 -0800

> trouble understanding why the two questions are different

The second question is not appropriate *as the first response*.

If someone should asset that a protocol feature won't work, they
should say why -- they should give a technical assessment that backs
their assertion.  If they don't, requesting *that* should be our first
response.

There's a point in the conversation when, yes, it is absolutely
appropriate to ask what background they have and what testing they've
actually done that supports their argument.  But someone who has never
written a line of code can still find a technical flaw, and it's the
technical argument that we should consider first.

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:58:02 -0800

On 2/25/2014 11:52 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> for those who think the question was inappropriate, a
...
> 	and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make

For this thread, it's been interesting to watch the way people have been 
skipping logic steps, conflating issues, inventing issues, wandering off 
into hypotheticals, or entirely missing basic issues.

When a suggestion is made and there has been no offer of expertise to 
justify it, the reasonable challenge is "What is the basis for believing 
that the suggestion is appropriate?" or an equivalent that targets the 
pragmatics of the suggestion.  It's entirely impersonal and entirely 
relevant.

What's happened here, instead, including your above examples (until the 
second part of the question in Case 2, is to challenge the person making 
the suggestion.

Absent an assertion of authority by the person making the suggestion -- 
and it was absent in this case -- questioning the background of that 
person is an ad hominem.

If the speaker is not arguing from authority, questioning their 
authority is somewhere between suspect and harassment.

d/

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:37:38 +0000

Dave,

Snipped, question inline. 

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:58 PM
> To: John C Klensin; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for
> presentations and face2face discussions)
> 
> > for those who think the question was inappropriate, a comparative
> > question about the following two entirely hypothetical cases:
> ...
> skipping logic steps, conflating issues, inventing issues, wandering off into
> hypotheticals, or entirely missing basic issues.

[JD]  For my personal understanding, why isn't the above an ad hominem attack
of those that disagree with you?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:36:58 -0800

> of those that disagree with you?

For the same reason your question to me is not an ad hominem:

      The focus is on what was said, not who said it.

So while my previous note might be criticized for being overly broad or 
or overly vague, or inadequately substantiated, or just plain wrong, it 
was not "about" the people but rather "about" the things being said.

d/

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:51:42 +0000

Dave,

But you use the phrase "the way people have been" and then you list all of the terrible things of which these people have been guilty.  

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:37 PM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> >skipping logic steps, conflating issues, inventing issues, wandering
> >> >off into hypotheticals, or entirely missing basic issues.
> > [JD]  For my personal understanding, why isn't the above an ad hominem
> > attack of those that disagree with you?
> 
> 
> 
> So while my previous note might be criticized for being overly broad or or overly
> vague, or inadequately substantiated, or just plain wrong, it was not "about"
> the people but rather "about" the things being said.
> 
> 
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:32:09 -0500

Hi,

> But you use the phrase "the way people have been" and then you list all of the terrible things of which these people have been guilty.  

As I tried to show in my previous note, the key point about _ad
hominem_ is that it's about relevance, not just about the person.

Suppose Andrew offers testimony that he saw Green Humpty Dumpty on the
wall this morning, and says it explains the green stain on the wall.
John says, "Andrew is a liar, because I have this secret letter from
him that I intercepted and that says he used green paint in his
graffiti on that wall; and also, I have this video capture from the
period in question that shows the wall with no Humpty Dumpty on it,
but shows Andrew painting the wall," that is not an _ad hominem_ no
matter how it impugns Andrew's integrity.  The counter-argument is
directly relevant to testing the truth of the testimony, and therefore
to undermining Andrew's conclusion.

The term "_ad hominem_" is not a four-dollar way to say "makes me feel
bad".  It is a particular kind of fallacy in which the fallacious
argument attacks the person speaking instead of the propositions in
question.  Saying, "John Sullivan is bald; you shouldn't believe his
hair tips," is a fallacy, because my father's manifest baldness is
just not related to whether his hair tips would be good for you.  (As
it happens, they wouldn't be.  But his baldness is not the reason you
should think that.  There are successful bald hairdressers.)

Whether a given bad argument is an _ad hominem_ or an appeal to
popularity or a (phony) appeal to authority -- or even a circular
argument ("begging the question") -- is just about the least
interesting question I can think to answer.  The issue when we are
having these kinds of discussion is whether a given argument is a good
one, and part of that evaluation has to be relevance, but getting the
classification just so is only fun for students of rhetoric.

All of that is, as John says elsewhere, also unrelated to whether we are
creating a chilly environment, harassing people, or welcoming people
into our standards-making activities.  I can -- and I bet you can too
-- construct a perfectly valid, relevant, and devastating argument
that is delivered in such a way as to wound the person whose argument
I am attacking.  And I can produce -- I bet you can too -- an argument
that is lousy, but that makes everyone in the room feel warm and
fuzzy.  These issues are very loosely coupled to whether something is
an _ad hominem_.  I think we ought to focus less on the classification
of boorish or ill-reasoned utterances and much more on the quality of
the reasoning and the openness of the presentation.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:53:44 +0100

I agree to write a draft to help the suggestion of having future draft of
defining an Ad hominems and preventing it.  Comments below,

> like this past experience is hugely relevant.
Remote participants do experience meetings as f2f participants do. The
question was not relevant, because it assumes that there is no problem in
IETF meetings and assumes that the improvement is needed in the poster
participant side (that may make it personal when one is disturbing another
many times).

> based on past deployment experience or is nothing but guesswork.

All People have rights and right to speak, but no need for making it look
funny when the poster is new comer or still had no RFC. If you say what is
your experience to some one new of 2 years and had no RFC, that
question will be like new comer have not same right as old comer to Speak.
Melinda once mention as to get technical work done to get recognise, but my
opinion is that this way of thinking to exclude new people until they do
RFC or do f2f attendance, is bad for IETF.

> lack of experience.

All have lack of types of experience in any organisation and specially
IETF. Not being able to welcome new participants is bad behavior if IETF is
not able to solve AD hominems.

And also note that when such questions are asked, the
> them the expert, not you.

If the question was the first conversation between two participants in IETF
then you are right. That was not the case, the case was one person doing Ad
homenimes to a new comer for many time, then that new comer reported cases
to IETF chair and to ADs. After that when the new comer will show up after
large patients, and made a suggestion, that Ad homenime person continues to
discourage the new comer. I hope you understand the specific case, and then
I agree we can look into general case of we need to know what is experience
of input makers.

IETF is responsible to solve this personal experience answering, not any
participant. Just because one person is known or welcomed that should not
mean experience. Just because one person has an RFC or many RFCs, that does
not mean they can do Ad hominemes.

I am very sorry but it looks now better for me to leave the IETF list
discussion (excluding LC comments and Review) for some time because this
list seems with no experience how to deal with new comers, and I will work
hard on Sunday to distribute the message to all new comers that this list
is dangerous list for new comers. I may also just make a question and
comment in the tutorial for new comers. I did enjoy posting on this list
because there are some great people I noticed, but I will stop for some
time for the list to think about its behavior/progress and new comers think
about their progress.

I think I will report/post the IETF list behavior with its
welcoming experiences with analysis and recommendation in one
historical draft when I return.

See you in meetings, thanks,

Salam

AB

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:27:03 -0500

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Remote participants do experience meetings as f2f participants do.

WG] If one strictly considers agenda and presentation discussion within a WG meeting, that statement is basically true. However, as someone who usually attends in person but has had to participate remotely in the past and therefore can directly compare the two, I note that when taken on the whole, my experience for meeting attendance remotely vs in person was vastly different.

 The question was not relevant, because it assumes that there is no problem in IETF meetings and assumes that the improvement is needed in the poster participant side (that may make it personal when one is disturbing another many times).

WG] I disagree. There has been significant virtual ink wasted on discussing IETF’s problems in meetings of “presenting” a draft for folks who haven’t read it instead of discussing and resolving issues that must be addressed for the draft to make forward progress. I admit that the question may have been curtly phrased, but it’s perfectly legitimate to ask “why do you think that this is a good idea?” when evaluating a seemingly arbitrary suggestion such as this, especially when the suggestion is absent much in the way of justification. Since this was directly related to meeting flow, one’s experience within WG meetings is relevant, as surely as one’s experience and knowledge of BGP comes into play when evaluating a suggestion to a BGP draft, or one’s experience with IETF process when suggesting process changes.

All People have rights and right to speak, but no need for making it look funny when the poster is new comer or still had no RFC. If you say what is your experience to some one new of 2 years and had no RFC, that question will be like new comer have not same right as old comer to Speak. Melinda once mention as to get technical work done to get recognise, but my opinion is that this way of thinking to exclude new people until they do RFC or do f2f attendance, is bad for IETF.

WG] Yes, all have a right to speak. But IETF, like many groups of engineers, is primarily merit-based. All start with effectively zero credibility, and build that up over time by providing useful (quality, rather than quantity) feedback in areas where they have expertise. All should also quickly learn not to be offended when someone says that the suggestion is a bad one, or does not immediately implement it. The mistake you make, AB, is to assume that simply because someone questioned why you thought your suggestion was a good one by asking about your experience, that the question was about shutting out a newcomer, or intended to imply that you’re somehow a bad person because you made a poorly thought-out and poorly justified suggestion of a blanket change to meeting flow.

If the question was the first conversation between two participants in IETF then you are right. That was not the case, the case was one person doing Ad homenimes to a new comer for many time, then that new comer reported cases to IETF chair and to ADs. After that when the new comer will show up after large patients, and made a suggestion, that Ad homenime person continues to discourage the new comer.

WG] There’s a character, Inigo Montoya, in a US movie called “The Princess Bride” who makes a statement in the movie that some parts of the internet are fond of quoting during arguments, “you keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it does.” As you can see from the discussion on this thread, even with good definitions of ad hominem, we don’t have any sort of agreement that the response in question was indeed an ad hominem attack on you, and I can’t really speak to any of the previous incidents I think you’re vaguely referencing here because I don’t have any personal knowledge of the circumstances.

IETF is responsible to solve this personal experience answering, not any participant. Just because one person is known or welcomed that should not mean experience. Just because one person has an RFC or many RFCs, that does not mean they can do Ad hominems.

WG] this isn’t about experience. This is about credibility, as well as good ideas vs bad ones, and how they are presented. When people question an unknown (to them) person's experience within IETF, they’re often doing it in order to try to give you the benefit of the doubt (I.e. Be patient and give guidance while a new person learns). I personally have been the beneficiary of that many times, from many experienced participants, both on-list and off, and both in matters of technology and in IETF process and culture. However, based on your previous posts to this list, and many different participants’ replies to you, you seem to be very quick to be offended by this as a perceived slight, rather than willing to avail yourself of the patience and guidance offered and more importantly, change your methods in response to that guidance.

I am very sorry but it looks now better for me to leave the IETF list discussion (excluding LC comments and Review) for some time because this list seems with no experience how to deal with new comers,
 WG] I agree with the first statement, but not the second. After 2 years, you’re not really a newcomer anymore, are you?

and I will work hard on Sunday to distribute the message to all new comers that this list is dangerous list for new comers. I may also just make a question and comment in the tutorial for new comers. I did enjoy posting on this list because there are some great people I noticed, but I will stop for some time for the list to think about its behavior/progress and new comers think about their progress.

WG] And as noted above, that is certainly your right as a participant. However, I sincerely hope that newcomers will not heed this (bad) advice, as your experience is not typical, and I flatly reject your assertion that the IETF and the way that its participants have treated you is primarily to blame for your difficulties in participating in the IETF. Newcomers often have great feedback, especially regarding technical issues about which they have expertise, but they should not feel discouraged if their feedback is not always implemented nor assume that the reason their feedback is not implemented is because they are a newcomer.  Further, when it comes to IETF process and culture, it’s hard for even experienced IETFers to effect change, even with good, well-justiified ideas based on years of experience within the existing process and culture, so in that case, It’s not just you.

I wish you luck in London, may it be a valuable learning experience for you, as well as an opportunity to forge some good working relationships with other participants.

Wes George

Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it.
-----------

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:52:14 -0800

> defining an Ad hominems and preventing it.  Comments below,

I am fully on board with efforts to make participation by relative
newcomers more smooth and comfortable.  However, I feel the idea of
creating an RFC merely to define "ad hominem" and suggest ways to prevent
it is just a bit silly.  For example, I can imagine a citation like "Your
comment is an ad hominem, as defined in RFCxxxx.  Please don't do that, or
rephrase your question."  And I can imagine both veterans and newcomers
alike thinking that's just a bizarre thing to do, or to have to do.

Perhaps I'm just amazed that we've reached a point where we feel we
actually have to write down what things constitute professional conduct (or
the opposite).

-MSK