Subject: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 03:20:38 -0700

Hi Leif,
At 11:30 PM 26-06-2019, Leif Johansson wrote:
>Personally I think accountability has value.

Yes.

There was dilution of responsibility.  The end-result is a RFC Series 
Editor role which is answerable to at least three structures.  It 
will probably be worse with the IASA 2.0.

The Internet Architecture Board claimed to have oversight over the 
RFC Editor function.  That claim is based on what was chiseled in 
obsoleted RFCs.  The Internet Architecture Board previously stated 
that it has a role as a shepherd of the RFC series.  A shepherd which 
follows process at the expense of evaluating the probability of a 
negative outcome  does not fully understand what he/she is accountable for.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:39:14 -0500

Hi Mike,

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> I'm going to top post because replying to this line by line isn't really 
> the best way to dispose of this part of the thread.  And as someone 

Agreed.  I will just make a few key points (and reorder slightly for my
convenience).  FWIW, my stance on the goal of "dispos[ing] of this part of
the thread" is not to come to agreement on the definition of "stupidity",
since that's off-topic for this list; I will try to limit myself to trying
to explain why, with my Sergeant-at-Arms hat, I continue to believe it is
not appropriate.

> noted, if I remained silent it might be taken as implicit approval of 
> what I consider a unsupportable take on "stupidity" as described below.
[...]
> To finish up - I appreciate that the Sargent at Arms has to walk a fine 
> line here, but I don't think this is even close.  Again, I'd appreciate 
> it if in the future we follow the general contract and first have 
> private conversations.   You'll  have plenty of time afterward to make 
> your explicit disapproval clear if necessary.

In this case, we felt a public statement was necessary, precisely because
you decided to use the word after a (presumed) careful deliberation and
thought it was still appropriate, and used it in the same sentence as "the
question of malign intent".  Situations and objects do not have "intent";
individuals (and perhaps groups) do.  To speak of "stupidity" as the result
of something with intent seems really hard to separate from the perceived
"stupidity" of the intended action leading to that result, i.e., the action
taken by the individual or group.  I do not think that's appropriate
professional conduct for this forum, and am compelled to publicly dispute
the stance that such conduct is a valid result of a careful consideration
of how to say something.

> Also I'd really appreciate it if you don't attribute a particular 
> emotion to my persistence with this set of discussions - it's yet 
> another form of demeaning behavior. You attributed "frustration", and 
> another I* attributed "upset" to me.  What I actually am is "sad" at the 
> state of affairs and "disappointed" in the various folk that caused this 
> stupidity to occur somewhat including myself.  Feel free to use either 
> of those words in future correspondence.

My apologies.  (Perhaps I was projecting my own frustration onto you, since
our responses to the situation seemed otherwise similar.)  I'll try to keep
that in mind.

-Ben

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:43:05 -0500

[with no hats]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> foreseeable result_ that was _completely avoidable_, but the result had 
> many many parents:
> 
> 1) The community for not more carefully constraining the IAB's assertion 
> of authority over the RFC process.
> 2) The IAB for delegation of said authority to the RSOC without 
> carefully constraining its exercise.
> 3) The IAB for not paying attention to the result of the RFC++ bof

I think you should say more about why you think the *IAB* did not pay
attention to the result of the RFC++ BoF.  Note that, as far as I can
recover the timeline of events here, the actions of the RSOC were the
triggering event.  Is there perhaps supposed to be some connection between
the BoF and the RSOC appointments of (4)?

> 4) The IAB for replacing the majority of the RSOC post the RFC++ bof 
> without input from the RSE, and in apparent violation of one of the 
> guiding principles of the RSOC - that of maintaining continuity from 
> year to year.
> 5) The community for not yelling a lot louder and longer when (4) happened.
> 6) The community, IAB and RSOC for not appreciating the value of a world 
> class professional editor/publisher to the continued excellence of the 
> RFC series, and for not expressing that appreciation in the form of 
> professional deference and independence rather than what appears to have 
> been more of a "you contractor, me boss"* model.
> 7) The RSOC for ... well - you know.
> 8) The LLC for not paying better attention to the relationship between 
> contractor and contractee.
> 
> I'm sure there are others.

Me, too, but that's a great start.

> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> *About a year ago, shortly after the RFC++ bof, I had a conversation 
> with one of the I* who I will not name about the disconnect between what 
> I though the RFC editor job was and what I was seeing the I* push.  The 
> phrase "she's just a contractor" is a direct quote from that conversation.

Wow, that seems pretty concerning, though I don't know if it would have (to
me) without the benefit of hindsight.

-Ben
(still no hats)

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:41:28 -0400

Seriously??

As someone much smarter than me once said: "When you reach the bottom of 
the hole, stop digging." While I admire persistence in trying to defend 
an untenable position, I'm at a loss to understand why this is 
acceptable behavior from the SAA?  As far as I can tell, you've tried 
your best to imply the worst possible meaning of my statement even in 
the face of multiple folk explaining the difference between calling some 
one stupid and calling a result a stupidity.

You also - again - seem to be missing the context.  The actual * quote was:

> With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive
> term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the
> above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning
> action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of
> malign intent open.

"this stupidity" is conjugate with "unfortunate event", "well meaning 
action" and "mistake" all items relating to the event/result.   Had I 
been able to prove malign intent, or I were trying to be offensive just 
to be offensive I would have used something more like: "this crime", 
"nefarious outcome", "underhanded result", or "dishonorable treatment".

But I'm sure we would then be discussing why I called someone a criminal.

This subject and this poster are in my kill file.  If you want me to 
read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me 
directly as I've now ask three times.

Later, Mike

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:44:24 -0400

Hi Mike,

As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC 3005. Repeated use of unprofessional language may be deterring others from voicing their opinion for fear of being disrespected. It is important that everyone in the community feels comfortable enough to express their own views on the IETF discussion list if they choose to do so.

I understand that you do not intend to read further mails on the IETF discussion list regarding the RSE. I’m sending this mail so that the community understands that the IETF discussion list charter is being enforced.

Regards,
Alissa 

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Seriously??
> 
> As someone much smarter than me once said: "When you reach the bottom of the hole, stop digging." While I admire persistence in trying to defend an untenable position, I'm at a loss to understand why this is acceptable behavior from the SAA?  As far as I can tell, you've tried your best to imply the worst possible meaning of my statement even in the face of multiple folk explaining the difference between calling some one stupid and calling a result a stupidity.
> 
> "this stupidity" is conjugate with "unfortunate event", "well meaning action" and "mistake" all items relating to the event/result.   Had I been able to prove malign intent, or I were trying to be offensive just to be offensive I would have used something more like: "this crime", "nefarious outcome", "underhanded result", or "dishonorable treatment".
> 
> This subject and this poster are in my kill file.  If you want me to read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me directly as I've now ask three times.
> 
> Later, Mike
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 19:45:10 -0700

>> This subject and this poster are in my kill file.  If you want me to read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me directly as I've now ask three times.

this is sad and embarrassing for all three concerned.  please stop and
try to get some technical work done if you are capable.

randy

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:55:24 -0400

> As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC 3005. Repeated us…

   I find this offensive.

   I'd much rather hear Michael StJohns' insight.

   (BTW, I won't be the least bit bothered if you call _me_ "stupid".)
--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:12:01 -0400

I was trying to figure out how to respond to Alissa’s comment and John’s response expresses what my reaction was - I also found it “offensive”

Mike has been making good points that some people in the IETF related bodies that were involved in Heather deciding that the very good work 
she was doing for the IETF community was not worth the BS she was getting do not want to internalize - 

Mike should be listened to rather than having the specific (benign) words he uses being over analyzed

Scott 

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 8:55 AM, John Leslie <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:16:35 -0700

See attached picture.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:29:53 -0400

Scott, John — thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I’ll try to figure out a better way to get my point across next time.

I appreciate the substance of Mike’s points and I welcome his continued substantive contributions. I expect to have a couple of my own responses shortly, perhaps in connection with some notes from the IAB. I should have included that information in my prior mail.

I believe we can all have constructive discourse, even about a subject such as this, without having postings that even arguably fall into the “inappropriate” category designated in RFC 3005. Perhaps I am sensitive to this because I spent years being terrified of sending email to this list out of fear of being demeaned in public. 

I’ll keep working on how to thread this needle better within the confines of RFC 3005.

Regards,
Alissa

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:31:52 -0400

fwiw - I found none of Mike’s postings remotely inappropriate

Scott

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 9:29 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:33:27 -0700

I was asked in a private email to explain that.  I wear these (and give them away) selectively when attending some meetings or conferences.

http://sl4.org/crocker.html

'Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you.  Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault.  Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor.  (Which, in point of fact, they would be.  One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.)  Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting.  Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.

Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you.  Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege.  Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity.  How could it?  Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

"Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.'

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:47:55 -0400

YES!   A thousand times YES!

On 7/3/19 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you.  Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault.  Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor.  (Which, in point of fact, they would be.  One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.)  Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting.  Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.
>
> "Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 09:53:41 -0400

--On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 20:44 -0400 Alissa Cooper
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to
> use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language
> that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC
> 3005. Repeated use of unprofessional language may be deterring
> others from voicing their opinion for fear of being
> disrespected. It is important that everyone in the community
> feels comfortable enough to express their own views on the
> IETF discussion list if they choose to do so.
>...
 
Alissa,

I find your note to be a little bit troubling at best.  In the
hope of encouraging a discussion that will move us forward, let
me try to explain why.  It is obvious that a number of members
of the community have found the situation with the RFC Editor,
certainly including the causes and circumstances of Heather's
decision to not seek a contract renewal beyond this calendar
year, quite problematic.  Several people have leapt to
conclusions about what happened and why and then charged of in
pursuit of whatever assumptions that has led them to.  I think
that is behavior we should be discouraging whether we have
specific rules against it or not and, to their credit, several
members of the community have made that point.   Others,
including Mike, have tried to ask questions that have seemed to
me to be targeted at getting a better understanding of what
happened, in what sequence, and, more generally, about whether
the actions taken were appropriate and consistent with good
practices.  To the extent to which the IETF still believes that
it is open, operates by bottom-up consensus, and that
Nomcom-appointed or otherwise selected leadership are
accountable to the participants, such questions must be
appropriate and the community has the right to expect that they
will be answered in a clear and forthright way rather than,
e.g., requiring that essentially the same question be asked
multiple times.  If there are circumstances that prevent such
answers, they should be identified and explained clearly enough
that the community can evaluate the criteria and whether they
are being properly applied.

I don't know whether you and others in the leadership agree but,
to me, failure to respond clearly and completely to such
questions, especially when they are posed by members of the
community with long and significant records of contributions to
the IETF and the Internet are fully as disrespectful, demeaning,
and unprofessional as, an unfortunate choice of vocabulary or
phrasing in response to what can be reasonably perceived as
evasive, contradictory, or incomplete answers.   I certainly
don't want to encourage either behavior, but I hope that, when
discouraging one, we don't lose sight of the other and potential
cause end effect relationships, especially when people having to
asking questions several times to get meaningful and
interpretable answers (if they get them at all) can discourage
participation in the IETF and open discussion and dialogue at
least as effectively as other types of disrespectful behavior.

Part of what motivated this note was thinking about a key bit of
IETF history.  As I'm sure you know, the POISED WG and creation
of the contemporary IETF were initiated by a series of events
and observations.  One of the critical ones, at least in my
opinion, was a talk at a plenary that was fairly strident in its
criticism of some proposed protocol choices and the people who
had made them.  I wonder whether, today, a talk that described
some protocols and their proponents as "roadkill on the
Information Superhighway" would be taken as intended and lead to
serious discussions and change or whether it would be dismissed
as disrespectful, its author publicly criticized, and --whether
it was the intended effect or not-- the discussion suppressed
because people were afraid to subject themselves to similar
criticism.   I don't know that it is possible to answer the
question -- circumstances are always different -- but I believe
that thinking about it might help to inform our thinking,
reactions, and policies.

best regards,
    john

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:59:23 -0400

> IETF discussion list if they choose to do so.

Alissa:

Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone does worry me.  I believe the tone is keeping others from voicing their opinion, and that it is important that everyone feel comfortable enough to express their own view on this list.

Russ

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:01:42 -0400

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:00 AM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone does worry
> me.  I believe the tone is keeping others from voicing their opinion, and
> that it is important that everyone feel comfortable enough to express their
> own view on this list.
>

+1

None of the issues John raises (even if I agreed with them) would excuse
Mike's tone.

--Richard

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:02:40 -0400

FWIW, my own interpretation of Ben and Alissa's intervention (and I
speak as a former SAA) is that it sounded very much like what the
"geek feminism" web sites frequently refer to as "tone policing"[1]

[1] https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/

If it is in fact a violation of RFC 3005, it's borderline in the
extreme, at least in my opinion --- calling an idea, an action, or a
policy is NOT unprofessional, at least in my opinion.  And so it
appeared from my vantage point to have the goal (and being successful)
of shutting someone up, and getting them to stop contributing.

And if we are getting distracted in to a discussion of what is and
isn't unprofessional, it's a great way to stop people from discussing
whether or not a mistake was made (and mistakes will get made, even by
well-meaning groups of people --- some would say, *especially* when it
is **groups** of people), and if so, how to move improve the system,
in a blame-free manner, so that that we can have better outcomes in
the future.

The first step, though is to agree whether or not something bad has
happened.  And it seems abundantly clear that many people are
unwilling to admit that perhaps "mistakes were made", and that in
fact, perhaps we *should* improve.

Best regards,

					- Ted

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:13:09 +0200

Dear Marc,

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:33:27AM -0700, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 'Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that
> other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information,
> not for being nice to you.  

I was not aware "Crocker's rules" exists, but I am not surprised given
the variety that exists in humanity and our wild imagination.

I believe "Crocker's Rules" are incompatible with the IETF process and
as such notifications via IETF's communication channels about whether
someone adheres to Crocker's Rules or not, don't serve a purpose. And
even worse, I see potential for these rules to be harmful to our shared
dreams.

When person A consents to receiving communication in a specific style
from person B, it doesn't mean that person C, D and E who observe the
communication agreed to person's B conduct towards person A. Perhaps
Crocker's Rules have value in private communication between consenting
adults, but not in a public forum. We can't know how conduct in context
of Crocker's affects person C, D, and E or even discourages them from
participating. We have to be careful when making assumptions.

I believe it is our collective duty to be cognizant and mindful of other
people's perception and interpretation of the messages we sent, and we
can't assume they were aware of Crocker's Rules or feel comfortable
observing expressions within the framework of Crocker's Rules.

I acknowledge individual people can commit themselves to attempt to take
no offensive, but we - as IETF - have collectively committed ourselves
to follow process outlined in documents such as rfc7154. My
interpretation is there is no room for any offensive language to be
submitted in the first place, even if one or more recipients have
indicated they won't take offensive.

Crocker's Rules are not for everyone, but the IETF is for everyone.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:41:23 -0400

I believe such rules (or something akin to them [*]) are essential to productive technical discussion and therefore essential to IETF.  I also believe that efforts to prevent people from telling the unvarnished truth about a technical mechanism, or a political one, are harmful to IETF in the most extreme sense possible.  

[*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people.  But criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s a risk that people will take such criticism personally. “

Keith

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> believe "Crocker's Rules" are incompatible with the IETF process and
> someone adheres to Crocker's Rules or not, don't serve a purpose.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:42:18 -0400

> participating. We have to be careful when making assumptions.

I don’t entirely disagree with you, Job.  And yet at the same time there is an essential problem here, and it doesn’t do to paper it over.

Here is the problem: the IETF has long had a culture that is consistent with what I guess we can call Crocker’s rule.   That is, we tend not to engage in self-censorship.  This creates a certain set of problems—people don’t always receive the honest criticism they hear generously, and part of the reason they don’t is that it’s often expressed in ways that are rather harsh.

And yet, I think it’s indisputably true (but please, feel free to dispute the point!) that despite the shortcomings of this method as it applies to inclusiveness, it does work.   And it is responsible for our past successes.

If the IETF completely goes away from this model of discourse, I think we will fade into obscurity.  At the same time, I think the point has been made in the past, and you made it just now, that harsh public criticism discourages participation from those who do not handle harsh criticism well.   This is a real problem, and we shouldn’t minimize it.

So the question is, is it possible for us to do better?   Can we do what worked for us in the past, but differently enough that we successfully include speakers who would be silenced by harsh public criticism?  Is there a way to practice Crocker’s rule that doesn’t discourage participation?

I think that if participants want to never hear a critical word, that is the wrong heuristic.  We simply can’t succeed if we don’t allow for criticism, and it can’t be okay for someone to reject or “not hear” criticism.

I would suggest that people who are interested in this topic pick up a copy of the book “Thanks For The Feedback”: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/313485/thanks-for-the-feedback-by-douglas-stone-and-sheila-heen/9780143127130/

Another excellent book to read on the same topic is “The Art of Possibility”: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/85697.The_Art_of_Possibility

The essential point that Marc expressed in Crocker’s rule is that it is a practice.  I think there’s a tendency to think that people can just show up to the IETF and participate without doing a practice: that the IETF should be a safe space for anybody, no matter how they receive criticism, to float about and try to do things.

The IETF can’t function that way.   We have to practice.  This is not a social club.  This doesn’t mean that we should be unkind to each other: we should definitely do our best to be kind.  But being kind isn’t always being nice, and being nice can’t be the standard of discourse that the IETF follows if we wish to continue to do good work.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:49:59 -0400

Nobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith.  They're talking about
treating fellow contributors with respect.  There's a big gap between those
two ideas.

--Richard

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I believe such rules (or something akin to them [*]) are essential to
> productive technical discussion and therefore essential to IETF.  I also
> believe that efforts to prevent people from telling the unvarnished truth
> about a technical mechanism, or a political one, are harmful to IETF in the
> most extreme sense possible.
>
> [*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people.  But
> criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s a
> risk that people will take such criticism personally. “
>
> Keith
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:52:53 -0400

No, what is being talked about is the suppression of necessary and constructive speech out of a misguided idea that telling the truth is disrespectful. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Nobody is talking about varnishing truth, Keith.  They're talking about treating fellow contributors with respect.  There's a big gap between those two ideas.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:57:25 -0400

I would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that the
issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not anything
to do with his arguments.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> No, what is being talked about is the suppression of necessary and
> constructive speech out of a misguided idea that telling the truth is
> disrespectful.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:59:05 -0400

With respect, I believe Alissa was incorrect in her assertions.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that the issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not anything to do with his arguments.
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics..com> wrote:

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:00:44 -0400

> [1] https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/

This is a thorny subject, and I don't want to derail the discussion too
much, but criticism of "tone policing" fails the symmetry test. Those who
engage in "tone policing" are equivalently engaging in "enforcing their
terms of engagement". If I don't want to have a conversation with angry
people, that's my choice. If you don't like it, find someone else to argue
with. That having been said, candor is absolutely necessary to getting good
technical outcomes.

I think the trick is figuring out how to be candid without being rude.
Offense is definitely a manifestation in the mind of the reader/listener,
so it's not entirely within the power of the writer/speaker to avoid
causing offense (nor, would I argue, should people walk around on eggshells
to avoid causing offense to the long tail), but certain modes of engagement
can certainly have a measurably negative effect on the standards process by
pushing out folks who would otherwise make valuable technical contributions
but who refuse to engage with those who employ invective as an everyday
tool. I don't think it's necessarily a race to the bottom (as a community
entirely comprising misanthropes will have a hard time propagating their
ideas outside of the group), but it's not clear the equilibrium reached
will be optimal.

Basically, my position is that contributors should make frank technical
judgments and use clear language without being jerks. There's definitely a
grey area, ripe for tussle, but as long as we don't stray too far to one
extreme, neither participation nor technical outcomes are likely to suffer
greatly.

Kyle

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:04:54 -0400

I assume you mean that you disagree with her (and the Sergeant-at-Arms')
evaluation that Mike was using unprofessional language?  Even if that's the
case, it's clear that the intent is to address tone, not content.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics..com
>> <[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:07:27 -0400

I disagree with your efforts to police my speech, and think further parsing of Mike’s speech has passed the point of diminishing returns.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I assume you mean that you disagree with her (and the Sergeant-at-Arms') evaluation that Mike was using unprofessional language?  Even if that's the case, it's clear that the intent is to address tone, not content.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:10:52 -0400

Now there's some truth-varnishing going on :)  I'm not disagreeing with
your tone, Keith, I'm saying your argument is based on a false premise.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I disagree with your efforts to police my speech, and think further
> parsing of Mike’s speech has passed the point of diminishing returns.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> I would invite you to re-read Alissa's message, which is explicit that
>> the issue is Mike's "repeated use of unprofessional language" -- not
>> anything to do with his arguments.
>>
>>>> [*] my preferred version is closer to “Criticize ideas, not people.
>>>> But criticize harmful ideas when necessary to prevent harm even if there’s
>>>> a risk that people will take such criticism personally. “
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:14:43 +0200

Dear Ted,

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:42:18AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don’t entirely disagree with you, Job.  And yet at the same time
> there is an essential problem here, and it doesn’t do to paper it
> over.
> 
> Here is the problem: the IETF has long had a culture that is
> consistent with what I guess we can call Crocker’s rule.  

Your observation surprises me, because that has never been my
perception.

> That is, we tend not to engage in self-censorship.

I respectfully disagree, I believe there have been milions of instances
where IETFers have deleted and not-yet-send emails because they realized
that for one reason or another the message would not positively
contribute.

> [snip]
>
> So the question is, is it possible for us to do better? 

Yes, that is always the question. And I am cautiously optimistic, I
believe IETF will not fade into obsolescence because IETF has a unique
characteristic rarely is found in organisations: we have the ability to
change our process, and we have even have a defined process to guide
such process changes! Because we can change ourselves, change our
culture, we can adapt to changing circumstances.

> Can we do what worked for us in the past, but differently enough that
> we successfully include speakers who would be silenced by harsh public
> criticism?

Even if harsh public critisism has worked in the past, I don't think the
approach aligns with our current trajectory where it appears we are now
more mindful of inclusivity and acknowledge diversity. 

> Is there a way to practice Crocker’s rule that doesn’t discourage
> participation?

In public context, I don't believe that is possible.

On a positive note: I believe Marc's reference to Crocker's Rules was an
attempt to express openness, a willingness to create space for other
people to express themselves. Creating such space is a wonderful thing,
but as we operate in public context we have to look for the smallest
common denominator, however hard that may be.

> The IETF can’t function that way.   We have to practice.  This is not
> a social club.  This doesn’t mean that we should be unkind to each
> other: we should definitely do our best to be kind.  But being kind
> isn’t always being nice, and being nice can’t be the standard of
> discourse that the IETF follows if we wish to continue to do good
> work.

I absolutely do not think that "being nice" and "good work" are mutually
exclusive, quite the opposite. Some of the best work done was the result
of people being nice to each other. I define being nice as demonstrating
patience and acting with empathy towards each other.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:23:15 -0500

> None of the issues John raises (even if I agreed with them) would excuse

[MB]   The tones went both ways. It was NOT just Mike.  Indeed, his
response that likely was the one that caused some initial concern was in
response to Adam, whose response was quite snarky and flippant IMHO.  [/MB]

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:29:37 -0400

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think there’s a few things here, mostly that we often don’t realize what is
Constructive and what isn’t.  In politics there is the phrase if you’re explaining you are losing.  

In technical discussions you often have to discuss very nuanced things and it’s easy to get lost in that and not realize when you have crossed the line from civil discourse to calling someones baby ugly.

While I appreciate the directness of my dear Dutch friend, some peoples perceptions of this may be it’s a hostile environment or some self-censorship is necessary.  I’m seeing a lot of things that I may feel are low quality pass through the IETF while others feel it’s their paramount achievement of their industry experience.  History will judge meanwhile we can’t hold back the technical critiques while at the same time, it’s large enough that one person may not be able to know it all.

This whole discussion is as much about the culture and history of the IETF as it is about where we are going as an industry group.

People here often turn petty gripes into a big thing (hey, my $800/free t-shirt size, room temps, are you my travel coordinator/cruise director) when they’re unrelated to the main function which is the actual work of the IETF.  The apex of this was the bad attitude event where some members of the secretariat presented.  I noticed the gripes went away (for awhile) after that.  I hope the personal gripes stay away, and a great example of how this went well was the power outage at a recent IETF meeting.  Things just kept going on.

Be the best version of yourself when on the list, and if you have feedback for me about how I’ve been horrible, I will accept your private critiques.  Ask around and you can get my cell number easily (or if you look carefully it’s out there) and call me.

Don’t e-mail when angry, go for a walk (or something else that will help you destress) and re-read before hitting send.

See many of you in Montreal!

- Jared

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:29:45 -0400

On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> as we operate in public context we have to look for the smallest

I don’t think that this is possible, and I don’t think that the IETF makes sense as just “a public space.”

The IETF is a place where work gets done.   That’s the point of the IETF.   The point of the IETF is not to be a space where people can express themselves, although ultimately of course that’s important.

The reason I shared those books with you is that I think they talk about how to solve this problem in a way that works.  They make demands both of the critic and the author.  I think that we need to make demands of the critic, and that is the point you are getting to.  But ultimately, criticism can always be taken as “not nice,” and that can’t work.

So yes, we should definitely discourage genuinely abusive behavior.  And it’s not wrong to ask Mike to tone it down.  But PR-actions are for abusive or antisocial behavior, not errors in tone.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:37:27 -0400

Just to +1 a couple of points Job makes below.

> that for one reason or another the message would not positively

These observations are not contradictory.  There is a privileged group
(largely the top posters to ietf@) who feel free to say whatever is on
their mind.  There is also a broader set of folks who do not.  I can see
how Ted arrived at his conclusion, given the bias in the data.

I would also challenge the phrase “self-censorship”.  Adapting ones
communications for an audience is not censorship, it’s effective
communications.  It can require that we think a bit before we speak, but
that cost is offset by the benefit of a better functioning community.

> patience and acting with empathy towards each other.

1000% this.  I've seen this work out across a bunch of different technical
communities, where there were strong disagreements, but also strong norms
for respect.

It may be surprising to folks that open discussion and strong enforcement
of community norms go together, but they're necessary partners.  One
person's speech can discourage another's, so if we really want to have an
open community, we need to keep each other honest not just technically, but
in terms of respect as well.

--Richard

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:40:30 -0400

I do hope this conversation can get back to the many points in Mike's
messages that need consideration and evaluation to effectively move forward.

Kathleen

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 AM Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics..com
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:42 AM Keith Moore <
>>>> moore@network-heretics..com <[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:46:01 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Though I am employed by the Internet Society, in this case I do not
speak for it.

> fact, perhaps we *should* improve.

I don't find that "abundantly clear" at all.  What I have seen in this
quite large volume of mail are several different reactions, many of
which seem to me to be suggesting that the outcome was (in more than
one dimension) less than everything one might have hoped, which is the
same thing as people admitting that mistakes were made.  I think there
may be differences of opinion about what the right path would have
been, but that does not mean that people are not conceding that,
whatever else is the case, the current state of affairs is not ideal.

In my opinion, some of the people who have been involved in this
dicussion have been pretty aggressive about their positions, and I
think that there have been several posts in the thread where, if
people were working anywhere in a management chain where I have
responsibility, I would be taking them aside for some discussion about
constructive approaches.  I don't think it discourages discussion to
point out that such aggressiveness may tend to drive people to avoid
expressing their opinions.  Whereas we have plenty of evidence that
highly aggressive styles of communication _do_ tend to discourage
discussion.  (And I recognize that I am one who is sometimes guilty of
that transgression.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 08:56:20 -0700

[ just hitting reply to be in thread, not pointing at you, sob ]

tom jennings (still a friend), the creator of fidonet[0], was repeatedly
pressured to make rules.  he eventually gave in and made two rules.  of
course, they immediately became expanded by the embellishers, resulting
in https://www.fidonet.org/policy4.txt, from which i quote

  The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:

     1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.

     2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

mike asked solid and critical questions.  when not answered, he became a
bit more strident.  as one to whisper twice and then nuke from orbit, i
find it hard to fault him.  when the response is an attack on his tone,
with no response to his question(s), and coming from two members of the
iesg, i am alarmed and deeply saddened by an abuse (due to imbalance) of
power in what is easily construed as an attempt to silence.

this is severely damaging the ietf and the internet.  please stop.  just
stop.

randy, who intends to spend the rest of the day doing engineering, you
       might too

---

0 - "FidoNet: technology, tools, and history," Communications of the ACM
    Volume 36 Issue 8, August 1993.
    https://archive.psg.com/930000.fidonet-acm.pdf

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:03:48 -0400

On 7/3/2019 11:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> inhttps://www.fidonet.org/policy4.txt, from which i quote
>

Actually, those came from a science fiction story about a culture that 
had those as the only two rules.   This 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Were_Right,_Joe)  seems to be the 
correct reference.   Mike

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 09:09:58 -0700

> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Were_Right,_Joe)  seems to be the

cool!  thanks for the cite!  i will use it to poke tj :)

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:11:22 -0400

> cool!  thanks for the cite!  i will use it to poke tj :)

Even better - the actual story: 
https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1957-11/Galaxy_1957_11#page/n33/mode/2up/search/annoy

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:16:22 +0100

>      2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
I think I'm right in suggesting that all legal codes are simply this, but
with a little more definition of "annoy", "excessively", and "easily".

Dave.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:20:22 -0700

Alissa,

I am troubled by your response to this situation.   The relevant text from RFC3005 is:

    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject

Given this is about being critical of an action by the IETF leadership (that is, the actions of the IAB/RSOC), I find it troubling that the leadership is invoking it's to restrict postings.   Mike was “speaking truth to power”.

While I agree we should should be professional in our communication, in the case of being critical of the IETF leadership, there should be a broad tolerance of what is allowed.  This was not done here, and it will have the side effect of saying you shouldn’t criticize the IETF leadership.

Bob

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
>

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:20:02 -0400

top posting

Perhaps to make progress, work towards a distilled list of questions
(including those that have not been answered) could be generated.
Answering many of the questions asked could be helpful in determining next
steps and a way forward.  I am not volunteering to generate that list, but
I would appreciate an organized review with lessons learned as processes
are possibly redesigned.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mary B <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone does
>>> worry me.  I believe the tone is keeping others from voicing their opinion,
>>> and that it is important that everyone feel comfortable enough to express
>>> their own view on this list.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:27:43 -0400

It is probably worth remembering that a lot of clever people can come
together and jointly arrive at an outcome none of them would have advocated
had they been thinking clearly.

One of the problems with voluntary societies is that a lot of people can
end up assuming that they are all in charge of micromanaging the employees.
It happens in local government as well, trying to explain to people that if
you want 'better teachers' then you probably have to think in terms of
improving pay and conditions rather than working out how to sack the ones
you think are bad.

At this stage, I cannot even remember what the technical issues at RFC++
were, I remember the BOF itself quite vividly because of the circumstances.

Given the amount of travel the IETF expects the RSE to do and the fact that
it requires a very skill set different from the one that most of us have,
it is going to be difficult to find people willing to do it. That probably
should have been considered earlier.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:49:56 +0300

> I do hope this conversation can get back to the many points in Mike's messages that need consideration and evaluation to effectively move forward.

+1

Tones and tone policing aside, I think the IETF has a tendency to move to meta-discussions (and meta-meta-discussions, like this post) quite easily. FWIW, I find it easiest to achieve something in an environment where discussions have moderate tones and are focused on matters rather than persons. Thanks for the FidoNet rules, btw, Randy. They seem almost like another instance of Postel’s principle. Don’t set the annoy bit in the messages you send, because it might make it less likely for the message to be received. Probably food for thought for many of us, including myself.

Perhaps we can get back to analysis of the situation, and the forward-looking what we can do next in the short term and the long term. I am unhappy about the result, but does the protocol need a better implementation or a new architecture or were there just bad circumstances? And perhaps we can talk about it in terms of principles rather a particular packet flow. FWIW, while I am in the IAB none of these questions are to me at least obvious but I’m looking to understand them better and learn from that.

Jari

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:06:27 -0400

Hi Bob,

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. A few responses below.

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 
> Given this is about being critical of an action by the IETF leadership (that is, the actions of the IAB/RSOC), I find it troubling that the leadership is invoking it's to restrict postings.   

No one’s postings have been restricted. Apologies if my previous note was unclear about that. Mike has continued to post today, as you may have seen.

> Mike was “speaking truth to power”.
> 

Even if I were to try to send that message I don’t think anyone would listen. :) As I said in my note to Scott and John, I erred by not indicating that substantive responses from myself and hopefully the IAB are forthcoming. I apologize for that, it was a mistake on my part. I didn’t want to get ahead of any IAB messages by sending my own substantive messages first. 

I appreciate that perceptions of what is considered unprofessional are subjective. In my experience, requests to use one’s “inside voice” are directed at children. I will factor into my decisionmaking that not everyone perceives it that way should the phrase be used on this list in the future.

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:58:26 -0400

> culture, we can adapt to changing circumstances.
I believe that the changes you seem to advocate would render IETF 
irrelevant, so I hope they never happen.
> more mindful of inclusivity and acknowledge diversity.

I categorically disagree that "inclusivity" and "diversity" 
considerations require IETF participants to withhold criticism. Yes, 
some cultures and some individuals have been conditioned to believe that 
it's impolite to criticize and/or that criticism of one's ideas is 
tantamount to personal criticism.   We need to clearly establish that 
these conventions are NOT appropriate for IETF, or really, for any 
technical discussion.

We're dealing with the most complex systems that mankind have ever 
created.   We cannot afford to promote dishonesty in the guise of being 
"nice" or "politically correct".

> In public context, I don't believe that is possible.
I don't believe it's possible to be technically competent in this 
subject matter without adopting a discipline akin to Crocker's rule 
(though perhaps not quite in that extreme).
> common denominator, however hard that may be.
"smallest common denominator" is a race to the bottom, it's promoting 
mediocrity as a virtue.   I emphatically disagree that it is.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:36:36 -0800

> "nice" or "politically correct".

I'm not sure I'm willing to concede that the internet is the
most complex, but I think that it's important to note, once again,
that you are positing a false dichotomy and that we are not
limited to a choice between dishonesty and brutality.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

Software longa, hardware brevis

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:01:01 -0400

> limited to a choice between dishonesty and brutality.

I may be exaggerating the situation somewhat by stating things in terms 
of the extremes of possibility.   I agree that there is a middle 
ground.   It is not necessary to be brutally honest at all times to get 
good technical work done.  But it is necessary to be able to be brutally 
honest, for that kind of input to be tolerated and respected even when 
it's unsettling.     It's hard enough to stand up in the face of social 
pressure even when the culture tolerates dissent, and this already 
happens too rarely in IETF even though the culture does tolerate it to 
some degree.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:09:13 -0800

On 7/3/19 11:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> good technical work done. 

It is not necessary at all to be brutal to get good technical
work done.  It is a choice.

I'll also point out that we use consensus-based decision-making
in the IETF, and it may be worth a re-read (or first-time read)
of RFC 7282.

Melinda

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:11:57 -0400

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 15:01, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>   It is not necessary to be brutally honest at all times to get good technical work done.  But it is necessary to be able to be brutally honest, for that kind of input to be tolerated and respected

Brutality does not garnish respect.

>> even when it's unsettling.     It's hard enough to stand up in the face of social pressure even when the culture tolerates dissent, and this already happens too rarely in IETF even though the culture does tolerate it to some degree.

Being brutally treated causes me more unsettlement than any kind spoken, well meaning, properly argued disagreement with me.

I hope we can all improve on our dispute handling. I surely can improve a lot, and by what I am reading above here, it seems you could improve your experience at and for the IETF as well.

Paul

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:29:27 -0400

> Brutality does not garnish respect.

"Brutally honest" is an idiom, not an accurate description.   The point 
is, there are times when you need to err on the side of honesty, rather 
than out of any perceptions of politeness.

And sure, some people have more skill than others at getting their point 
across without pressing others' buttons.   And we could probably all 
become more skilled at that.   But do we want to exclude all input from 
those less-skilled individuals until they gain more skill?   (To me it 
seems like that would be like saying "Sorry, we're going to publish this 
RFC with this identified technical flaw because we think you were 
impolite in your attempts to raise awareness of the issue.")

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:33:13 -0400

--On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 09:59 -0400 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone
> does worry me.  I believe the tone is keeping others from
> voicing their opinion, and that it is important that everyone
> feel comfortable enough to express their own view on this list.

Russ,

I've read the subsequent discussion but I think yours might be
the best note to respond specifically to, so am doing so.  In my
long note on this subject, I tried to avoid expressing a strong
opinion about what Mike said in the message Alissa cites.
Personally, I would have preferred that he express himself
somewhat differently.  However, probably like most others who
have been around the IETF and contributed to its technical work
for a long time, I've had my ideas ridiculed and have been
insulted and demeaned by people from IETF's history who were
masters of the arts of insults and invective.  While I have
never learned to like being insulted, demeaned, or harassed and
don't expect others to either, I think it is reasonable to
expect that the IETF leadership and designated functionaries
(SAAs and IETF Chairs both included) will try to avoid being too
easily offended or outraged even when they are (quite
reasonably) trying to protect others who might feel
uncomfortable expressing their own views in what they might
perceive as a hostile environment.

However, I am concerned about two aspects of this issue that may
be quite separate and that impact, respectively, whether or not
people feel free to express their views and whether it is
considered reasonable to question "leadership" or "management"
decisions.  

(1) When a comment like Mike's --which would rank as extremely
mild in any catalogue of abusive and unprofessional behavior in
the IETF, not that relationship justifies it-- gets the amount
and level of attention it has gotten, one possible effect is the
presumably-desired one of making others feel more secure about
expressing their own views.   Two others, at least equally
likely IMO, are convincing someone who is contemplating speaking
up that saying something unpopular or disapproving will get them
attacked and thereby convincing them to be silent instead and
convincing the person being criticized for their style or tone
that it just isn't work trying to comment on that issue, or IETF
issues generally, any more.  That clearly isn't desirable either.

(2) It has been mentioned by others, but I've very concerned
that, when someone has tried to ask questions about what
occurred and why, and has to ask them repeatedly because he or
she isn't getting clear answers, that there is the appearance
that some comment is seized on as an excuse to push back against
and condemn the question-asking.   In terms of discouraging
people from speaking freely and expressing their own views
(and/or questioning the behavior of those in authority), that is
about as bad as it gets, whether that was the intent of the
remarks or not.  I am reminded of a nasty children's "game" in
which party A tries to stay within whatever rules have been set
by trying to provide party B to respond in a way that violates
those rules and then demands that party B be punished for that.
In other contexts, party A is called "the bully" and party B
"the victim".

best,
   john

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:43:42 +0000

>    "Brutally honest" is an idiom, not an accurate description. 

In what country? :)

>  The point 
  
Can you please provide an example where it was necessary to "move fast and break norms" (sic), and taking the time to be polite would have made a difference? In my experience, the IETF doesn't work at the speed that requires the former, but maybe I'm wrong.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:46:43 -0400

> work done.  It is a choice.

DIsagree.  Not brutal, but (as I said) brutally honest - which is an 
idiom.   (That's the best expression that currently comes to my mind, 
but there might be a better one.)

> in the IETF, and it may be worth a re-read (or first-time read)

I find this belittling and insulting.   Of course I'm aware that we used 
consensus-based decision-making.  But the appearance of consensus is 
misleading if people aren't permitted to openly express their views, 
even if they do so in a suboptimal manner.

Keith

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:54:47 -0400

> issues generally, any more.  That clearly isn't desirable either.

Getting people people stop and think about whether they're being
unprofessional is like the whole point of having a code of conduct and
enforcing it.  The clearer we make our norms, the easier the decision will
be for the would-be contributor.

--Richard

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:56:18 +0000

😊  What a funny piece of E-Mail!  See my responses starting with "EG >" below...

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Paul Wouters
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 15:01, Keith Moore <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

EG >  normally, I suspect the word intended would be "garner" - but "garnish" is so much more humorous.

EG> Being "brutally treated"  in an E-Mail exchange is at once easy and difficult; being critical  of someone's ideas in an E-mail often seems more painful than it was intended to be.

EG> at the risk of being politically incorrect, Amen to that...

Paul

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:41:02 -0700

tl;dr: credit where due memo

>      2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

tj has (privately) corrected me.  the attribution of applying this to
fidonet was ben baker.

randy

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:18:09 -0700

I can't immerse myself in this discussion for more than about 15 seconds
without thinking about the many online communities I have seen implode and
dissolve in a pool of anger and recrimination.  A tendency for rhetoric to
become polemic and then spiral out of control seems an unavoidable inbuilt
feature of the medium.  Therefore, I'm generally in favor of proactive
attempts to throw water on flames before the community is placed at risk.
If you think you are a victim of "political correctness", please consider
that the people you're mad at probably think they're preserving community
health.

It's a pity that "tone policing" has come to mean "attack a position you
disagree with based on whining about rudeness" because the literal meaning
of the phrase "tone policing" is something I'm generally sympathetic with.
Like any other kind of policing, it can get out of control. But I think
it's a necessary activity.

I've been told to shut up and be less rude in at least two IETF WGs and you
know what, the people telling me were right.

Having said all that: Heather's departure looks from the outside like a
major failure of process design or basic management competence.  We need to
find out whether either or both of these perceptions are true, and try to
prevent this kind of thing from becoming a pattern.  I think it's perfectly
OK for people to be deeply upset.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:26:28 -0800

On 7/3/19 11:46 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> I find this belittling and insulting.   

I apologize for that.

> Of course I'm aware that we used

Consensus is a process, and it takes effort and craftsmanship
to build it.  Brutality and the argumentation style you and others
are advocating would be a pretty good example of a consensus anti-
pattern.  And I know you've heard this before but I'm going to
repeat it because I think it's a huge problem: harshness is going
to stop people from expressing their views, as well, and it's
really not at all clear to me that their participation is less
valuable than participation by people who feel muzzled by an
expectation of courtesy.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:53:10 +0000

>    But I really don't think this is a matter of choosing whether or not to 
    *be* impolite, it's about the *perception* of [im]politeness. 

I strongly disagree with this.  The phrase "perception of impoliteness" implies that any fault is not with the speaker, but rather with those who might be offended. The speaker is blameless, it's just your "perception."

>   But perceptions of impoliteness 
    do serve as barriers to raising such issues, and I think we need to 
    lower those barriers to the extent possible.
    
I disagree with this even more strongly. The implication is that all we need to do is teach everyone how descend to the uncivil level of discourse that used to be acceptable.  I maintain it no longer is. You seem to believe that it's just in my head.  I guess time will tell who's right.

	/r$

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:29:09 -0400

On 7/3/19 6:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> pattern.

At no time have I advocated brutality, and it's a gross 
mischaracterization of the argumentation style that I personally 
prefer.  But your current argumentation style is insulting beyond almost 
anything I've seen in my nearly 30 year history with IETF.

You'd prefer the appearance of consensus obtained from a group that's 
hostile to technical input?  Real consensus requires openness to input, 
even input that's unsettling.

> And I know you've heard this before but I'm going to

What I have consistently found for my whole life is that it's essential 
to stand up to abusive people, and people who use lies and intimidation 
to suppress input and distort facts.    You seem to be speaking out in 
favor of such tactics, maybe even employing them yourself.    I prefer 
to believe that you've simply misunderstood me or have a warped view of 
who I am and what I stand for, but no amount of trying to correct your 
impression seems to work.   So it's hard to see it as anything other 
than abuse.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:36:25 -0400

> I strongly disagree with this.  The phrase "perception of impoliteness" implies that any fault is not with the speaker, but rather with those who might be offended. The speaker is blameless, it's j…

If a speaker withholds useful input because he/she perceives it would be 
impolite, or taken as impolite, that impedes IETF's goals.

If people suppress useful input because they perceive it as impolite, 
that also impedes IETF's goals.

If an audience discredits useful input because he/she perceives it as 
impolite, that also impedes IETF's goals.

> I disagree with this even more strongly. The implication is that all we need to do is teach everyone how descend to the uncivil level of discourse that used to be acceptable.  I maintain it no long…

My experience is that there are often widely varying impressions about 
what is polite and what is impolite.    I don't want us to descend to 
the least civil discourse that's possible, any more than I want us to 
enforce the lowest common denominator of "politeness" that exists in 
human society (which would basically prevent us from ever raising a 
technical objection to anything, but instead having to say things like 
"I don't understand X" or withholding support for proposals without 
explaining why). Either way lies madness.   I want an explicitly defined 
middle ground.

Keith

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:44:05 +0000

Have you seen evidence of that happening?  I haven't.  I have seen things go the other way and people trying to excuse needless impoliteness because that's the best way to get a frank exchange of views.  Baloney.  There are multiple aspects to consider in getting a frank exchange of views, and working to include everyone is my preference.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 00:47:04 +0100

Without reference to any specific email, this thread
is the worst I've seen in quite a while in terms of
the content being the antithesis of the subject line.
(TBH, I'm laughing and wincing at the same time;-)

Maybe it's time for some of us (no, I'm not saying
which:-) to stop assuming whomever we disagree with
is an absolutist?

S.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:49:49 -0400

On 7/3/19 7:44 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:

> Have you seen evidence of that happening?  I haven't.

Yes, I've seen numerous examples of each of the above.

>   I have seen things go the other way and people trying to excuse needless impoliteness because that's the best way to get a frank exchange of views.  Baloney.  There are multiple aspects to consider in getting a frank exchange of views, and working to include everyone is my preference.

We appear to agree in the sense that we both want to make sure everyone 
is able to air their views.

Keith

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:51:01 +0000

Yes.  Good.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:51:18 -0400

On 7/3/19 6:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I can't immerse myself in this discussion for more than about 15 
> seconds without thinking about the many online communities I have seen 
> implode and dissolve in a pool of anger and recrimination.  A tendency 
> for rhetoric to become polemic and then spiral out of control seems an 
> unavoidable inbuilt feature of the medium.  Therefore, I'm generally 
> in favor of proactive attempts to throw water on flames before the 
> community is placed at risk.

I don't disagree.   We've all seem flame wars get out of hand and rarely 
do they produce good results.

I hope I'm not seen as promoting flame wars.  What I'm trying to promote 
is freedom to raise technical issues, even when people fear (as is often 
the case) that doing so might be seen as impolite.

>   If you think you are a victim of "political correctness", please 
> consider that the people you're mad at probably think they're 
> preserving community health.
I hope we're all trying to preserve community health.

As I see it, there are two sets of concerns:

  * One is that people might be discouraged from speaking freely and
    honestly because they see the environment as hostile.
  * The other is that people might be discouraged from speaking freely
    and honestly because others are telling them that they're being hostile.

IMO both sets of concern are valid.  In a sense, they both have a 
similar undesirable effect of discouraging valuable technical input, 
with consequent harm to IETF's ability to do work.

(I also note that both lines of arguments can be (mis)used to 
deliberately suppress technical input.)

Where I disagree with some is with the idea that the right answer is in 
everyone dumbing down their input to the least common denominator of 
politeness, when (for example) some people's notions of politeness (even 
in the US) include not challenging the opinions of those viewed as "in 
authority".

Instead I think IETF needs explicit community standards for how to 
express input, and standards for how to react to input that one finds 
disagreeable.   And I strongly suspect that such standards should 
resemble Crocker's rules - though again, perhaps not in such an extreme 
form.   I certainly believe that one should confine criticism to 
technical details and/or ideas (not people), that criticism should be 
expressed in terms of what technical problems would or might result, or 
in terms of who would be harmed or disenfranchised by the result, and 
that participants should avoid accusations of improper motive even when 
it seems to be the case (as it sometimes does).   So to cite a concrete 
example, one should be able to call an idea stupid but not to call 
people stupid.  (If you don't like the word "stupid" suggest a better 
one, but we need a way to express that concept.)

>
> It's a pity that "tone policing" has come to mean "attack a position 
> you disagree with based on whining about rudeness" because the literal 
> meaning of the phrase "tone policing" is something I'm generally 
> sympathetic with.  Like any other kind of policing, it can get out of 
> control. But I think it's a necessary activity.

In my experience (mostly outside of IETF but it's starting to appear 
here too), "tone policing" basically amounts to "my prejudices are more 
important/fair than your prejudices, so I have a right to use my 
prejudice as justification to suppress your speech and/or actions 
because I view them as prejudiced because of my own prejudices".

There are milder versions of "tone policing" ("tone feedback"?) that I 
do sometimes find helpful if it reduces the potential for flame wars.

>
> I've been told to shut up and be less rude in at least two IETF WGs 
> and you know what, the people telling me were right.
It can happen to anybody :)

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:57:40 +1200

On 04-Jul-19 07:54, Richard Barnes wrote:
...
> Getting people people stop and think about whether they're being unprofessional is like the whole point of having a code of conduct and enforcing it.  The clearer we make our norms, the easier the decision will be for the would-be contributor.

We could spend a great deal of time arguing about what the word "unprofessional" means in email to a group of professional colleagues. But I doubt if it would help, because at best we'd end up with a set of adjectives that have at least as much vagueness built into them as "unprofessional".

Personally, I don't find it unprofessional to characterise a decision or action of a committee as "a stupidity". Certainly it's stronger than "a mistake", but it's not a personal attack. It's stating what sort of a mistake the writer believes has happened.

(However, I just searched my personal mail archives for the string "stupid" and it's very rare, and mainly used in contexts like "I have a stupid question.")

   Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 21:00:29 -0400

> Yes, I've seen numerous examples of each of the above.

I claim it happens every time we sit through 47 slides of 9pt text crammed
into a 5 minute slot.   The chair failed to communicate with the presenter,
often because they were being too polite.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:21:09 -0400

Re-adding the list.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:53 Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 21:01 Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone else wrote:
> This nicely highlights a misunderstanding that’s showing up here.  Keith,
> for example, has mentioned several times the idea of arguments not being
> raised because they would be perceived as impolite.  Similar to your
> scenario here.
>
> That is not at all the meaning of politeness that I (or I think Melinda)
> have in mind.  That, I agree, is unhelpful self-censorship that we
> shouldn’t encourage.
>
> It is possible, though, to tell someone politely and empathetically that
> they won’t be allowed to present that deck.  That their protocol is
> unworkable.  It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and it merits the
> effort.
>
> I’m not saying anyone should say anything different substantively, I’m
> saying we shouldn’t tolerate people being unkind to each other.
>
>
> —Richard
>
>
>
>>
>> --

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:24:41 -0500

On 3 Jul 2019, at 18:29, Keith Moore wrote:

> prefer.  But your current argumentation style is insulting beyond 
> almost anything I've seen in my nearly 30 year history with IETF.

Keith, if I understand this correctly, you have been arguing (a la 
Crocker's Rules) that it is important that people be able to criticize 
ideas in an unvarnished way and that listeners need to get over any 
personal insult they might feel and instead focus on the content of 
those criticisms. And yet here, instead of focusing on Melinda's actual 
criticisms, you focus on your interpretation of her "characterization" 
of your position[*], criticize her "argumentation style", and are 
"insulted" (and earlier, "belittled" by her pointing out that what you 
say might be in conflict with consensus-based decision making). That's a 
pretty impressive level of irony.

([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that is 
harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which seems 
pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)

So, getting to the substance of both of your comments rather than on how 
they were presented:

> hostile to technical input?  Real consensus requires openness to 
> input, even input that's unsettling.

You've very much missed Melinda's point. 7282 not only points out that 
it is important to listen to all technical points, but it also makes 
quite clear that a failure of consensus can also come from people 
"giving up". As Melinda says:

>> to stop people from expressing their views, as well

If I am participating in a WG and happen to have a showstopper technical 
point, but it is shouted down by someone who, on the grounds of "being 
brutally honest", is simply being an ass, I might very well decide that 
it is no longer worth my energy and walk away from the noxious 
environment. And if nobody happened to really understand my point 
because it was drowned out by all of the "brutal honesty", the consensus 
has failed miserably, as will the protocol being produced.

So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the "brutal 
honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing important 
technical points that might be lost because others in the group won't 
tolerate that "brutal honesty".

>> and it's
> What I have consistently found for my whole life is that it's 
> essential to stand up to abusive people, and people who use lies and 
> intimidation to suppress input and distort facts.    You seem to be 
> speaking out in favor of such tactics, maybe even employing them 
> yourself.    I prefer to believe that you've simply misunderstood me 
> or have a warped view of who I am and what I stand for, but no amount 
> of trying to correct your impression seems to work.   So it's hard 
> to see it as anything other than abuse.

I think it is you, Keith, who has misunderstood Melinda's point, 
accusing her of ill motives instead of presuming there is a good point 
in there and attempting to look for it. I would suggest a reset on your 
part, and you attempting to understand the point being made instead of 
trying to be so "brutally honest" with her.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:59:25 -0400

On 7/3/19 6:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> unavoidable inbuilt feature of the medium.

I've been holding my "tongue" - as I've only ever been involved in IETF 
peripherally (mostly during my days, long ago, working on stuff at BBN, 
later when doing policy work).  But this is, after all a public list, 
and IETF is open to all to show up (Internet governance has long been my 
go-to example of how one might scale up town meeting style governance).

But I have to jump in and agree with this, strongly.  As someone who's 
on all too many lists, and hosts a bunch - it does seem like arguments 
over style, increasingly dominate discussions of substance, and all too 
often unpopular opinions are jumped on, in the name of "your tone may 
hurt someone's feelings" (less commonly, someone saying directly "you 
offended ME").  To the point that I've been considering that calls for 
censorship or banning - of topics, of terms, of people - is the only 
offense deserving of censorship or expulsion.

I'm also reminded of my days at BBN, where design review was viewed as a 
competitive sport (at least the ones I was party to - from both sides).  
It may not be "fun" having one's designs picked to shreds, with glee - 
but it sure benefited the ultimate work product, and was generally 
appreciated (if not completely "enjoyed") by the one presenting a design.

As a sometimes author, I'm also reminded that the good author welcomes 
brutal review, comment and editing (an editor who worries about 
offending an author by their edits is a worthless editor).

Might I suggest that, if not "brutality," then "vigorous" comment is 
something to be encouraged, not discouraged.  And that, when it comes to 
concerns about some people not speaking up because of being "attacked" - 
perhaps the response is to encourage people to develop thicker skins; 
IMHO, meekness is not a positive personality trait in technical work.  
After all, in theory, we're all competent, professional, adults here - 
criticism, even impolite & brutal criticism, adds value (assuming that 
it's substantive, not ad hominum or otherwise content-free).

> Therefore, I'm generally in favor of proactive attempts to throw water 
> on flames before the community is placed at risk.  If you think you 
> are a victim of "political correctness", please consider that the 
> people you're mad at probably think they're preserving community health.
>
I can't help but think that "be conservative in what you do, be liberal 
in what you accept from others" applies even more to online discussion 
than to protocol implementation.  Beyond that, can't we take the 
discussions about tone & style outside?

Respectfully (sort of),

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:27:06 -0400

On 7/4/19 1:24 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> those criticisms. 

Yes, though I've repeatedly said things like "not in such an extreme 
form".   But yes, people need to try to listen to ideas, and criticism 
of ideas, in whatever form it's offered, even though this might be a 
challenge.  I see countless examples in which people reject an idea not 
because it's an inherently bad idea, but because they don't like the 
person making it, or they project all kinds of motivations onto that 
person that are often entirely figments of the readers' imaginations.   
So yes, I do believe that readers have a responsibility to try to 
overcome their prejudices when reading ideas and criticism of ideas by 
others.   And I would have thought that were obvious to most longtime 
IETF participants, so I'm surprised there's so much backlash about it.

Maybe people interpret Crocker's Rules differently than I do, but I 
don't interpret them as encouraging people to be abusive jerks.   I 
interpret them as encouraging speakers to be honest and encouraging 
listeners to look past their own prejudices.   What I've experienced for 
most of my time in IETF is that speaking honestly can be tremendously 
difficult to do precisely because audiences can be so hostile (see above 
paragraph) [*].   And while it's all well and good to want people to 
couch their ideas in palatable terms, and one can be more effective if 
one manages to do so, the demand that many people seem to want to impose 
(which I interpret as effectively "express this idea in terms that I 
like, or that avoid my prejudices") imposes yet another barrier to 
getting the idea out at all, and that's tragic.

Also I fundamentally do not believe that it's the responsibility of the 
lone speaker to avoid all of the numerous readers' prejudices, and it 
seems to me that readers' prejudices are generally a far bigger barrier 
to getting the idea out than any ill intent on the speaker's part.   So 
I think readers in IETF need to try harder and not expect to be 
accommodated.   But to be clearer, I do expect speakers to act in good 
faith, which probably includes not trying to push readers' buttons.

> And yet here, instead of focusing on Melinda's actual criticisms, you 
> focus on your interpretation of her "characterization" of your 
> position[*], criticize her "argumentation style", and are "insulted" 
> (and earlier, "belittled" by her pointing out that what you say might 
> be in conflict with consensus-based decision making). That's a pretty 
> impressive level of irony.
>
> ([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that 
> is harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which 
> seems pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)

Ah, to me "brutality" is more extreme than that - something like a 
willful intent to do serious harm.

I found Melinda's message baffling because it seemed to be exhibiting 
ill intent from someone I don't think I've ever seen exhibit such 
before.  If anything the attack seemed more extreme because of this.   
If she was trying to deliberately push my buttons in an effort to get me 
to see the flaws in my argument, it didn't have the desired effect 
because (silly me?) I took her message at face value rather than as a 
stunt.   But it also seemed to me that she was acting in a way that 
contradicted what she was advocating, which to me was not supportive of 
her argument.   If I misinterpreted her intent, I'm relieved.

>
> So, getting to the substance of both of your comments rather than on 
> how they were presented:
>
> If I am participating in a WG and happen to have a showstopper 
> technical point, but it is shouted down by someone who, on the grounds 
> of "being brutally honest", is simply being an ass, I might very well 
> decide that it is no longer worth my energy and walk away from the 
> noxious environment. And if nobody happened to really understand my 
> point because it was drowned out by all of the "brutal honesty", the 
> consensus has failed miserably, as will the protocol being produced.

I don't disagree with that.  It's just that in my experience it seems 
that the audience is MUCH more likely to label the speaker as "being an 
ass" when the speaker really is acting in good faith and trying to 
express a point despite his/her frustration at the hostile/prejudiced 
audience, than that the speaker is actually being an ass.

And as I've said a couple of times, feel free to suggest a better phrase 
than "brutally honest", because I think it's being taken in a way other 
than that I intended.   My experience is that many (most?) people have a 
hard time even with well-intended honesty - honesty that's not trying to 
offend anyone - and often react with hostility to it because of their 
own prejudices.   But by (hastily) choosing the words "brutal honesty" I 
wasn't intending to suggest that speakers should intend to be abusive, 
but rather that speakers should feel free to contribute technical ideas 
and criticism in good faith even if those ideas and criticism might be 
seen as offensive to people attached to different ideas, or people 
projecting ill intent on the speaker that doesn't actually exist.

> So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the 
> "brutal honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing 
> important technical points that might be lost because others in the 
> group won't tolerate that "brutal honesty".
>
>>> and it's
>> of trying to correct your impression seems to work.   So it's hard to 
>> see it as anything other than abuse.
>
> in there and attempting to look for it. I would suggest a reset on 
> your part, and you attempting to understand the point being made 
> instead of trying to be so "brutally honest" with her.

Well, again, I took it at face value rather than as a stunt; assumed it 
was honest rather than playing a role.   (I've rarely found stunts 
effective when I've tried them).

But I don't think I missed the broader point - some people feel like the 
bulk of the responsibility is on the speaker to try to avoid offending 
the audience, and I feel like the bulk of the responsibility is on the 
listeners to try to avoid being fooled by their own prejudices.    But 
it's not as if the entirety of the responsibility is on either party.   
I hope that clarifies things.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:00:56 -0400

If I were to state a corollary to Crocker’s rule, it is that in order for any useful discourse to occur, each of us has to let go of a very specific idea.  That idea, stated from my perspective, is that “Ted is usually right.” To test this rule on yourself, do not substitute “I” for “Ted.” Make it personal.  Substitute in your own name.  And then say “Ted is usually wrong” (but substitute your name) and see how that feels.  It can be a fruitful exploratory process.

I go back and forth between the two beliefs, but I find I get better results when I assume that I am usually wrong.  The only reason that this is a problem is that there is a social belief that being wrong is bad.  Realizing that you were wrong is actually an incredibly good outcome, not bad at all.  It’s far worse to not realize that you are wrong.

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:03:47 -0600

On 4 Jul 2019, at 12:27, Keith Moore wrote:

> form".   But yes, people need to try to listen to ideas, and 
> criticism of ideas, in whatever form it's offered, even though this 
> might be a challenge.

So, you failed to do exactly the above when it came to Melinda's 
criticism of your ideas, though I have not seen you yet attempt to 
correct that situation.

> I see countless examples in which people reject an idea not because 
> it's an inherently bad idea, but because they don't like the person 
> making it, or they project all kinds of motivations onto that person 
> that are often entirely figments of the readers' imaginations.

Ditto.

> others.   And I would have thought that were obvious to most 
> longtime IETF participants, so I'm surprised there's so much backlash 
> about it.

Ditto. Re-read exactly what you wrote in the above three statements and 
see exactly how you violated those rules when interpreting Melinda's 
comment.

> What I've experienced for most of my time in IETF is that speaking 
> honestly can be tremendously difficult to do precisely because 
> audiences can be so hostile (see above paragraph) [*].   And while 
> it's all well and good to want people to couch their ideas in 
> palatable terms, and one can be more effective if one manages to do 
> so, the demand that many people seem to want to impose (which I 
> interpret as effectively "express this idea in terms that I like, or 
> that avoid my prejudices") imposes yet another barrier to getting the 
> idea out at all, and that's tragic.

Which may (or may not) be true, but again misses Melinda's point that 
speaking "honestly" may itself impose a barrier to getting others' ideas 
out. (See below for more on this.)

> willful intent to do serious harm.

Which perhaps says that it is a reader's problem (i.e., yours), not a 
writer's problem (Melinda's) that you interpreted her statement as a 
"mischaracterization".

>   If she was trying to deliberately push my buttons in an effort to 
> get me to see the flaws in my argument, it didn't have the desired 
> effect because (silly me?) I took her message at face value rather 
> than as a stunt.

So to you, the only choices are (1) ill-intent, (2) deliberately pushing 
your buttons, or (3) a stunt? Let's presume you're wrong: None of those 
things is true. Not that you should have gone there in the first place, 
because by your own principle, you shouldn't be interpreting her intent, 
you should be looking for the point of the statement. So let's assume 
you were wrong in both the attempt to interpret intent, and the 
conclusion you came to.

> If I misinterpreted her intent, I'm relieved.

But apparently not contrite.

> that the audience is MUCH more likely to label the speaker as "being 
> an ass" when the speaker really is acting in good faith and trying to 

There seems to be some confirmation bias in there. You can hear every 
time someone is being "forceful" with their opinion and can sometimes 
determine whether they actually turned out to be correct in their point. 
Exactly how many times have people silently walked away from discussions 
because people who were being "forceful" got it wrong? What if that 
number is (unbeknownst to you) much higher than the number of correct 
points that have been dismissed by a hostile audience? How would you 
know?

You seem to be assuming data that you simply have no empirical support 
for.

> And as I've said a couple of times, feel free to suggest a better 
> phrase than "brutally honest", because I think it's being taken in a 
> way other than that I intended.

I really don't think it is being taken as other than you intended, and 
I'm fine with the phrase.

> My experience is that many (most?) people have a hard time even with 
> well-intended honesty - honesty that's not trying to offend anyone - 
> and often react with hostility to it because of their own prejudices.

Hence your reaction to Melinda's post.

> But by (hastily) choosing the words "brutal honesty" I wasn't 
> intending to suggest that speakers should intend to be abusive, but 
> rather that speakers should feel free to contribute technical ideas 

Yep, that's what I think we all mean by it.

> But I don't think I missed the broader point - some people feel like 
> the bulk of the responsibility is on the speaker to try to avoid 
> offending the audience, and I feel like the bulk of the responsibility 
> is on the listeners to try to avoid being fooled by their own 
> prejudices.    But it's not as if the entirety of the 
> responsibility is on either party.

Nope, it is clear that you missed Melinda's broader point. Let me paste 

> I hope that clarifies things.

Nope. You continue to argue against someone's intent rather than their 
point, and don't see that doing so goes directly against the principles 
that you are espousing.

I hope this note clarifies for you what the point is.

pr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 23:52:11 -0400

> On Jul 4, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think I would say that in order for Crocker’s Rules to work, one must be at least as willing to discover that he/she is  “wrong” (in some sense, including that he/she has failed to take some important case into account), as to discover that he/she is right.  

I would not personally recommend adopting either a “_____ is usually wrong” or “______ is usually right” mindset, because either approach seems to me to promote a kind of closed mindedness.  I would say try to have an open mind, but if that’s too hard, be optimistic about yourself rather than pessimistic.  It’s easier to learn and take advantage of discovery from an optimistic point of view.  (I say this as one who was conditioned to pessimism and self deprecation from early childhood; it’s very hard to overcome that mindset and realize your potential.)

(For myself, I am often grateful to learn something that proves me wrong, because the learning is useful; and sometimes find it awkward - almost embarrassing - to be proven right.  But I don’t accept social pressure as a form of proof.) 

>   Realizing that you were wrong is actually an incredibly good outcome, not bad at all. 

Certainly agree with that.  Can be awkward or painful but generally good overall.

Keith

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 01:16:16 -0400

It doesn’t work if you don’t start out with a predisposition to believe that you are mistaken. This counteracts a cognitive bias we all share: that we are correct by default. This is too deeply ingrained to fight with small measures. You have to go to the other extreme.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 4, 2019, at 11:52 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 01:20:41 -0400

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I’m not sure that’s true in general, or at least I suspect the true situation is more layered and complex than that and depends on the individual and how that person was conditioned.  I do think there is a common bias that presumes that one’s experiences are representative of the whole picture, and it probably does help to try to assume the opposite.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 04:30:26 -0700

Hi Richard,
At 08:37 AM 03-07-2019, Richard Barnes wrote:
>I would also challenge the phrase 
>"self-censorship".  Adapting ones 
>communications for an audience is not 
>censorship, it's effective communications.  It 
>can require that we think a bit before we speak, 
>but that cost is offset by the benefit of a better functioning community.

One of the angles to "self-censorship" is that it 
is influenced by the attitude which is 
visible.  I'll try to illustrate it as follows: 
is it permissible for a participant to express 
his/her disagreement?  Is it permissible for the 
discussion which occurs after that to be confrontational?

Some persons would be reluctant to express an 
opinion in a venue which is perceived as 
hostile.  Do anyone wish to read that opinion or not?

This thread was triggered by a decision which was 
based on a RFC which was written 19 years 
ago.  The attitude at that time were probably 
different.  The problem is likely the same, i.e. 
figuring out what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:31:02 +0000

Ted,

This may work for you, but will not work for many.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that many people would - if they start out with a predisposition to believe that they are (as opposed to might be) mistaken - would simply keep quiet.  That might be the worst thing they could do.

But, as someone pointed out already, this could be a result of assuming you've expressed an absolute.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 1:16 AM
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF Discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:37:28 -0400

You’re right. 

What I mean is, when someone says something that contradicts what I understand to be true, there is great value in assuming that what they have said is true and exploring that pathway rather than trying to prove them wrong. Trying to prove them wrong tends to lead to motivated reasoning.

Also, on matters of opinion, I can always prove you wrong to my own satisfaction, so that isn’t useful. There’s simply more benefit to trying to see what you see. 

But you are right that if we think that because the other person might be right, it’s safer not to speak, that’s a bad outcome. Assuming that Ted is wrong has to be accompanied by some bravery, and the lack of that bravery is indeed another cognitive bias to overcome. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ted,
>

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:02:56 -0700

Maybe one way to look at Crocker's rule is not as a predisposition that the "declarer" believes that she/he is mistaken, but that she/he understood his/her position on the Dunning–Kruger scale (in the context of that declaration).

One other thing I did not see discussed is that Crocker's rule is not a request to have people optimizing their messages to you, it is an acceptance that people may optimize their messages to you.  The choice to do so is still completely on the originator of the messages -- the fact that I decided to be liberal on what messages I will accept does not affect your choice of continuing to be conservative in the messages you are sending.

That obviously does not say anything about bystanders (in a discussion circle or on a public mailing-list) who did not choose the protocol (or lack thereof) of the conversation they are eavesdropping to.  Maybe in the future one will be able to use a different MIME part for the two versions of a message, with the version not under Crockers'rule automatically generated by an AI/ML from the other one.

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:57:51 +0000

So, you think that I implied that the reason why many people would stay out of a discussion if they started from a viewpoint that they are wrong (not that they might be) is that it would be unsafe and they would lack the bravery required?

Hmmm...

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 10:37 AM
To: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Cc: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>; IETF Discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
Importance: High

You’re right. 

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:03:25 -0400

If you think you’re definitely wrong about something, and the goal of a discussion is to find a right answer, why would you contribute that something to a discussion?  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 10:34:12 -0700

> If you think you’re definitely wrong about something, and the goal of
> a discussion is to find a right answer, why would you contribute that
> something to a discussion?

on some mailing lists, e.g. nanog, a good way to get an answer to a
question is to posit a wrong answer.  if you just ask the question,
no one will answer; but 412 people are happy to correct you. :)

of course it requires a thick skin and the ability to sort through 412
responses.

randy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:38:08 -0400

> If you think you’re definitely wrong about something, and the goal of a discussion is to find a right answer, why would you contribute that something to a discussion?  

The presumption is that I’m already in the conversation, and someone has said something to me with which I disagree.  It is at this point that presuming it is I, and not the other person, who is mistaken, is helpful.  Obviously I wouldn’t have joined the conversation in the first place if I didn’t have the (possibly mistaken) impression that I had something to add to it.  I am not proposing that that “possibly mistaken” part be presumed, and used as a reason not to contribute even though I feel that I have something to add.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:38:33 -0400

> of course it requires a thick skin and the ability to sort through 412

:)

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 17:39:55 +0000

Randy,

I essentially agree, with the qualification that - if you don't "posit a wrong answer" that wouldn't pass the least discerning sanity filter - you could find yourself "filtered out" of all subsequent discussion.

If I feel sure that I am wrong, I would think about the question further before adding to the inevitable noise.

I have hopes that this is a common point of view, in spite of evidence that occasionally arise to the contrary.

😊

--

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

> If you think youʼre definitely wrong about something, and the goal of

> something to a discussion?

on some mailing lists, e.g. nanog, a good way to get an answer to a question is to posit a wrong answer.  if you just ask the question, no one will answer; but 412 people are happy to correct you. :)

of course it requires a thick skin and the ability to sort through 412 responses.

randy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:46:51 -0400

> If I feel sure that I am wrong, I would think about the question further before adding to the inevitable noise.

Exactly.   And if further thinking didn’t help to resolve the dissonance, you might even ask questions! :)

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 17:49:52 +0000

I would, if I thought I had a reasonable question to ask.  At worst, I would learn something from doing so.

But I have known quite a few who would learn only that asking a question was a mistake.

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Cc: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>; Keith Moore <[email-masked]>; IETF Rinse Repeat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
Importance: High

On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
If I feel sure that I am wrong, I would think about the question further before adding to the inevitable noise.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:59:42 -0400

> But I have known quite a few who would learn only that asking a question was a mistake.

Perhaps.  Sometimes when you get your answer, you realize that you are not wrong.   But it’s still useful to ask!  Also, I’ve found that it’s not uncommon for asking questions to reduce the energy of the debate, because now the other person feels like they are being listened to, and not just contradicted.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 13:46:11 -0400

On 7/3/2019 11:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:> [ just hitting reply to be in 
thread, not pointing at you, sob ]
>
> tom jennings (still a friend), the creator of fidonet[0],

Amazingly, Randy, I still have many die-hards using Fidonet frontends, 
mail and file gateways, virtualized over TCP. My Platinum Xpress (PX) 
and Wildcat! BBS are among the "Last of the Mohicans" with Fidonet 
capabilities.  http://www.santronics.com/products/pxpress

> was repeatedly

Yes, as you remember, there was a weapon -- membership into the 
Fidonet nodelist.  Excommunications was possible.  There is also the 
technical compliance requirement. FTS-1 was a basic requirement for 
all the software during Zone Mail Hour.  I recall how this became an 
early contention and conflict with the FTSC and the then-modern 
internet developers who wanted to use the advanced internet-ready 
WAZOO protocol and not waste time with a dated protocol that did not 
work well under the packet switching network.  A sysop could be 
excommunicated for not using compliant software.

> power in what is easily construed as an attempt to silence.

Unfortunately, this remains to be and don't see is changing.  The 
basic idea among the many IETF cogs is to allow "noise" (thread 
activity levels) decide what is relevant or when a "cog" will join the 
discussion.  There is also the "messenger" problem.  Depending on who 
delivers it, it can activate or kill mail I/O.   This remains to be a 
behavior with a number of well-respected, long time IETF "do-all" cogs 
who will ignore smaller participant postings until someone deemed more 
important replies, and to a large extent, almost always to "shut" it 
down.   There is also now the big elephant in the room, the "who you 
work for" guy - big vs small.  If you are from the bigger firm, 
increasingly with stronger, sponsorship ties to the IETF,  in my 
technical opinion, this has hurts what I long called "Cooperative 
Competition" where we design protocols common to all implementations 
at all scales and doesn't include technology that hurt or raise the 
barriers of entry for the smaller scales and implementations.  Today, 
cooperative competition is harder to achieve.  The IETF still helps 
keep the spirit, but in the end, the little guy is losing within the 
IETF.  I understand it is a battle. People will suggest the IETF 
monies spent needs to be allocated in a way that gets thing done. I 
read that a number of times stated when it comes to creating WG. 
Unfortunately, in my view, even if you are incline to follow a market 
leader, the quality of proposals are down and while the "Trickle Down" 
theories are nice, the realities are they don't quite work when the 
implementation cost are now much higher to even explore new ideas and 
methods used by the bigger firms.

> this is severely damaging the ietf and the internet.  please stop.  just

In my opinion, the IETF does not benefit by the, for lack of a better 
term, "IETF Do-all" folks. They are certainly highly experienced, 
provide input, help complete, push, and to a growing extent  help 
"rammed down" lower quality documents as "proposed standards," but in 
my opinion, it comes with no major long term gain or benefits to the 
entire IETF community as a whole -- from hobbyist, small, mid to 
enterprises.  Newer participants quickly learn "who's who" and learn 
to pick their battles often leaving out concerns that may appear like 
you are rocking the boat.   Like now.

Today, many in the IETF are less tolerant are are quick to promote or 
seed the ideas of moderation and controls to shut down any form of 
contention or boat rocking.

>      https://archive.psg.com/930000.fidonet-acm.pdf

Never knew this document existed. :)

-- 
HLS

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 13:51:07 -0400

> tj has (privately) corrected me.  the attribution of applying this to

Randy, did you help piggy pack the fidonet backbone across zones (1-6) 
via your early academia internet or x.25 connections?

-- 
HLS

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:57:53 +0200

Le 03/07/2019 à 15:47, Keith Moore a écrit :
 >> Crocker's rules
>> [...] that kind  of mental discipline.

That discipline sounds like a philosophy inviting to accept destiny 
instead of promoting free will.  It may not fly in today's world :-)

What could work is restrain when sending [known citation.]

Alex