Subject: RE: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:52:22 +0000

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2021 3:52 AM
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

Hi,

> And that's why it's important to reinforce the idea that IETF participants are NOT representatives of their employers, but at most "sponsored" by them (or in many cases they pay their own way), and IETF participants are expected to use their own best technical judgment about what's good for the Internet as a whole.

If we can get back to this, I'm in!

Unfortunately the IETF has indeed become the IVTF (https://archive.psg.com/051000.sigcomm-ivtf.pdf)

Cheers,
Sander

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 08:24:42 +0000

On 31/10/2021 03:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> s/Unprofessional commentary/Uncivil commentary/
>
> Merriam-Webster Online says:
>
> Definition of uncivil
>
> 1 : not civilized : barbarous
> 2 : lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite uncivil remarks
> 3 : not conducive to civic harmony and welfare

I slept on this and decided that I prefer professional.  Civil is to me 
more social and less, well, professional.  This is about getting the 
work done, focussing on technical matters, with reason, logic, avoiding 
'ad hominem' and emotional outbursts (as the follow-up e-mails in the 
thread may show).

I would consider courteous, respectful, considerate but come back to 
professional as the best IMO.

Tom Petch

> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>     Thinking of the IETF standards process: https://xkcd.com/2530/
>
> On 31-Oct-21 13:34, Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely. That's why I threw together
>>>
>>> http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html
>>>
>>> <http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/README.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> in my defence, because every so often I get asked to justify my worth
>>> and existence to some random corporate apparatchik of some random
>>> company who has decided that he (and it's always a he. women just
>>> don't do that whole  'you must justify your right to exist to me'
>>> thing) dislikes my participation in an IETF mailing list.
>>
>> And that's why it's important to reinforce the idea that IETF
>> participants are NOT representatives of their employers, but at most
>> "sponsored" by them (or in many cases they pay their own way), and IETF
>> participants are expected to use their own best technical judgment about
>> what's good for the Internet as a whole.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
> .
>

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 23:54:47 +1100

> professional as the best IMO.

I kind of agree, but I also realise that there's probably some cultural baggage here and civil might translate better in the parts of the world which aren't primarily English-speaking and to people who aren't corporate professionals.

Cheers,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 00:13:59 -0400

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 7:35 PM Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hiya,
> On 31/10/2021 23:25, Jay Daley wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/10/2021, at 11:31 AM, Keith Moore<[email-masked]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's hard to escape the impression that some of those insisting on
> >> "professional behavior" are looking for a way to exclude those who
> >> they deem not qualified, so as to get out of the way of the Big
> >> Corporations who want IETF to do what they want it to do.
>
> > While I understand the allure of conspiracy theories, it is far more
> > straightforward and far more accurate to assume that those insisting
> > on "professional behaviour" are simply looking to exclude
> > "unprofessional behaviour" wherever that is found, with no ulterior
> > motive.
>

It is really not helpful to raise the fact that there are some people who
believe in absurd theories involving alien reptiles to respond to a person
describing a practice that has been commonplace in IETF for the entire time
I have been involved.

We design international communications systems. We have people attending
our meetings with the names of organizations anyone with just a little bit
of familiarity with the intelligence world know to be open covers.

> I don't think there's any necessity here to impugn someone as
> finding conspiracy theories alluring.
>
> These things change over time and in different locales. At
> this time, ISTM there are some corporate HR regimes that are
> both a vast improvement over what was seen a decade or two
> ago, and yet at the same time, can be validly criticised as
> being hugely hypocritical. My impression is that Keith is
> more making the point that "professional" in such a context
> is problematic. (A point with which I agree btw.)
>

There is a subspecialty in information engagement called agenda denial. It
is a set of tactics that are used to respond to an unwinnable argument by
denying discussion.

One of those tactics is to tell people that it is impossible to discuss an
issue because people tried to raise it in the 'wrong way'. I have seen that
happen on occasion in IETF meetings but Keith comes from a locale where
that particular tactic and in particular the term 'unprofessional' is
frequently employed as pretext for preventing dismantling of things most
people thought were dismantled in the 1960s.

Anyone can be civil, but as someone who spent a considerable amount of time
and effort to become a chartered engineer, I consider the use of the term
'professional' to imply someone holds the relevant qualifications.

Since I don't believe we should limit participation to people holding
particular credentials, the term civil is prefered.

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:14:01 +0000

> I kind of agree, but I also realise that there's probably some cultural baggage here and civil might translate better in the parts of the world which aren't primarily English-speaking and to people…

Could well be but then are we seeking to deprecate uncivil or 
incivility?  I see both un- and in- have cropped up in this thread and 
for me it is incivility that fits better.

Tom Petch

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 12:39:41 +0100

> I kind of agree, but I also realise that there's probably some cultural baggage here and civil might translate better in the parts of the world which aren't primarily English-speaking and to people…

The German word with the same roots, “zivil”, means “not military” (civilian) or also "not in uniform” (plain-clothes).
JFYI; we are used that words mean different things in English than in German.

“Professionell” has pretty much the same meaning here as in English, but in German many uses of “professional” become “Beruf-“, “beruflich” (having to do with the occupation/job) or “geschäftlich” (having to do with business).
“Professionell” most definitely does not mean “corporate” here.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 21:10:21 +0900

As it is so obviously demonstrated that requiring to be "civil"
can and do mean unacceptable censorship, why do some of you bother
to keep discussing about "which behavior is appropriate or not"?

It is obvious that behavior of management people to require
rest of us to be "professional" or "civil", whatever it means,
is not only inappropriate but also unacceptable.

Instead, rest of us can and should enjoy freedom of speech without
being disturbed by censorship attempts of unprofessional/uncivil
/immoral/unlawful management functions, which shouldn't be
functions originally expected for SAAs.

Remember that SAAs were provided against highly commercially
motivated people seeking for alternative DNS root but
*definitely* not beyond.

					Masataka Ohta

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:44:48 -0400

On 11/4/21 12:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> but Keith comes from a locale where that particular tactic and in 
> particular the term 'unprofessional' is frequently employed as pretext 
> for preventing dismantling of things most people thought were 
> dismantled in the 1960s.

Offhand, I don't recall the word "unprofessional" being used this way in 
my "locale".

But I was raised in an area (Nashville, Tennessee) that was very 
appearance-conscious, and I attended a religious school that was very 
appearance-conscious, staffed by people who were very 
appearance-conscious.   By the time I was 12 or so it was obvious to me 
that those people cared much more about appearance than reality.   They 
were viciously critical of anyone who did not walk the walk and talk the 
talk and dress in the very conservative manner common to their religious 
sect, often labeling them "sinners" and implying that they were damned 
for eternity.    The verse most quoted by them was "Abstain from all 
appearance of evil".   At the same time, they would overlook the actual 
behavior of anyone who did keep up appearances, giving them the benefit 
of the doubt unless and until the evidence against them was overwhelming.

So yes, that had a profound effect on me, so much that I gave up a 
scholarship at Vanderbilt University and attended a state-supported 
school instead, at least partially because I didn't want anything to do 
with Nashville or Nashville culture anymore.

One of the things that I used to really like about IETF when I got 
involved circa 1990, was that it mostly eschewed the trappings of 
professionalism.   People didn't care much who you were or who you 
worked for or where you were from, they cared about whether you knew 
what you were talking about and made useful contributions.   Which 
seemed to me then, and now, to be exactly how they should be.

Another positive aspect about IETF of that time that stood out was the 
community's tolerance of different points-of-view and different kinds of 
personalities.

By contrast, today, we have people advocating intolerance, and insisting 
that IETF must become intolerant of certain people in order to make IETF 
seem more attractive to intolerant people.   I do not hold with that 
view, and it unpleasantly reminds me of the hypocrisy of the environment 
in which I was raised and schooled. From recent private mail I 
understand that some would not only call such language "uncivil 
behavior", they would advocate censorship of individuals using it.

To me that advocation of censorship, and the efforts to marginalize 
certain people, are uncivil in the extreme, and I wish people would stop it.

For IETF to function properly, its participants need to be able to speak 
their minds.    People are only free to speak their minds on any subject 
in an environment that is radically open to speech.   I agree that 
there's some need for comity, and I'm fine with rules that prohibit 
insulting of other participants.   But censorship needs to be extremely 
rare, not used as a mechanism to make less tolerant people feel more 
comfortable.

I will not defend descriptions like "stupid" and "garbage" when 
describing a protocol, because I think criticism of a protocol is pretty 
much unhelpful unless a reader can use it to evaluate whether some 
change or other protocol would suit the critic better.   But I don't 
believe that such descriptions are insulting or uncivil.   To the 
contrary, I think it's necessary that we be able to criticize protocols, 
even in extreme terms sometimes.

I also think it's necessary that we be able to criticize companies, even 
in extreme terms sometimes, though again it's more helpful if the 
critics say specifically why the company is being criticized.   But 
predatory companies are unfortunately part of the landscape that we 
inhabit, and we do the Internet community a disservice if we refuse to 
recognize the elephants in the room out of some misguided sense of 
"civility" or "professionalism". IETF cannot do its job properly if it 
acts as if it owes fealty to these companies.

What would not be acceptable to me would be using a participant's 
employer as a means of disparaging that participant.   Everyone has to 
decide for themselves what compromises between doing what's ideal or 
right, and doing what puts food on the table, they're willing to 
accept.   We need to respect others' decisions, and realize that there 
are good people who are are still trying to do what's right as best they 
can, even when their employers may be doing tremendous harm.

And that's another reason why we need to expect individual participants 
to use their own best technical judgment, and treat them as if they are 
doing so (even though we know that's not always the case) unless there's 
very good reason to believe otherwise.

Keith

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 08:55:20 +1100

Thanks Keith,

This is a really excellent message - and I really appreciate your description of "appearance-conscious".  Thankfully I didn't grow up in a religious school, but I know people (in person) who had similar experiences to yours.  "Appearance-conscious" groups tend towards dysfunction and in-group misbehaviour.

It is much easier to see this in people in other people than in ourselves - and if I reflect on myself, I do notice that I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who I mostly agree with as well.

That's probably the key thing that identity focused people have partly right... and in the context of the IETF I'm sure we have blind spots where we're more willing to accept kind of dodgy work from people who speak "engineering-language" well enough to create a compelling narrative.

BUT - that doesn't mean that we should try to change the narratives we focus on, it means we should try harder to find the underlying "stuff that actually works" that science and engineering are supposed to be based on.  And if "based on reality and what actually works" is exclusionary - that's a good exclusionary and we should embrace it.

And then there's the other half of identity / diversity which is "different people have different needs, and the IETF will naturally focus on the needs of the people who are here".  That's a whole another challenge because the IETF does need to have some degree of focus and scope.

An organisation that doesn't have that tries to be the "everything to everybody" organisation, which leads to a place that gets nothing done and creates no value.  But an IETF which is just the in-club for Western engineers with a few particular hobbies also misses a lot of valuable voices, and an IETF which changed to become an in-club for different voices of a slightly different group of Western social-engineers with a different set of hobbies wouldn't be any better.  We need a balance for sure.

...

So back to the topic:

What can we do here?  We need to find SOME wording that gives a (to use a sports metaphor) "play the ball, not the player" - and have a SAA who can give you a timeout if you start kicking a player rather than kicking the ball.

I'm not sure I'm seeing an answer in this thread yet which compels me more than "unprofessional" or "uncivil".  Is there a word for "focusing on a proxy for the issue rather than the actual issue", or "repeating the same thing over and over without listening to, or by mis-characterising, responses" because that's often what I see underlying poor behaviour on our IETF lists, and we do need some boundary on what's allowed.

Cheers,

Bron.

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:05:16 +1100

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, at 10:39, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 02:55 PM 04-11-2021, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >So back to the topic:
> >
> >What can we do here?  We need to find SOME wording that gives a (to 
> >use a sports metaphor) "play the ball, not the player" - and have a 
> >SAA who can give you a timeout if you start kicking a player rather 
> >than kicking the ball.
> >
> >I'm not sure I'm seeing an answer in this thread yet which compels 
> >me more than "unprofessional" or "uncivil".  Is there a word for 
> >"focusing on a proxy for the issue rather than the actual issue", or 
> >"repeating the same thing over and over without listening to, or by 
> >mis-characterising, responses" because that's often what I see 
> >underlying poor behaviour on our IETF lists, and we do need some 
> >boundary on what's allowed.
> 
> Sometimes, a message about "conduct" is sent to a mailing list to ask 
> each side to pause the discussion instead of pushing for an opinion 
> which is completely at odds with the other side.

There is another issue with asking for discussions to slow down, which is that mailing lists have people from many different timezones and with other things going on in their lives.  It's quite unfair for those who aren't awake at the time for the conversation to move on so fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

So it's quite reasonable to say "you're allowed to send up to three messages per day and then back off and let somebody else speak".  This is more obvious in an in-person meeting, where it's pretty clear if a couple of people are monopolising the room and not giving anybody else a chance to speak.

Likewise, if a couple of people are yelling at each other in an in-person meeting, the body language of everybody else makes it quite clear that they are getting out of line - but a similar escalation of emotionality on a mailing list doesn't have that real-time dampener effect of the audience feedback you get in a real room - so a more explicit "let's take a pause, go away and think about what's important here" does need to happen.

The problem, and I think you identify it well here, is when that "let's take a pause" is used with an underlying "and hopefully you'll just go away because I don't like the point you're trying to make". 

Using a pause as a way to make people go away is not cool - but using it to stop somebody saying the same thing over and over, forcefully, and not waiting for others (who might not be awake or paying attention right now) to have a chance to contribute to the conversation first - that's reasonable.  Conversations shouldn't be dominated by those who have the time to write a lot of email at all hours of the day.

Regards,

Bron.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 15:06:13 -0700

Hi Jay,
At 04:25 PM 31-10-2021, Jay Daley wrote:
>"unprofessional behaviour" wherever that is found, with no ulterior motive.

I didn't think of conspiracy theory at any point during my exchange 
with Keith.  He's not the only subscriber who disagrees on the using 
the word "professional" to provide guidance for conduct.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 16:39:29 -0700

The actual issue is mistrust.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 22:36:57 -0700

Hi Bron,
At 05:05 PM 04-11-2021, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>There is another issue with asking for discussions to slow down, 
>which is that mailing lists have people from many different 
>timezones and with other things going on in their lives.  It's quite 
>unfair for those who aren't awake at the time for the conversation 
>to move on so fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

Yes.

>So it's quite reasonable to say "you're allowed to send up to three 
>messages per day and then back off and let somebody else 
>speak".  This is more obvious in an in-person meeting, where it's 
>pretty clear if a couple of people are monopolising the room and not 
>giving anybody else a chance to speak.

It would be difficult to enforce a message limit rule on a working 
group mailing list.

>Likewise, if a couple of people are yelling at each other in an 
>in-person meeting, the body language of everybody else makes it 
>quite clear that they are getting out of line - but a similar 
>escalation of emotionality on a mailing list doesn't have that 
>real-time dampener effect of the audience feedback you get in a real 
>room - so a more explicit "let's take a pause, go away and think 
>about what's important here" does need to happen.

The yelling is risky (please see RFC 7776).

>The problem, and I think you identify it well here, is when that 
>"let's take a pause" is used with an underlying "and hopefully 
>you'll just go away because I don't like the point you're trying to make".
>
>Using a pause as a way to make people go away is not cool - but 
>using it to stop somebody saying the same thing over and over, 
>forcefully, and not waiting for others (who might not be awake or 
>paying attention right now) to have a chance to contribute to the 
>conversation first - that's reasonable.  Conversations shouldn't be 
>dominated by those who have the time to write a lot of email at all 
>hours of the day.

The purpose of the pause is to give everyone enough time to read the 
"Note Well".  I would  not use it to prevent someone from repeating 
his/her arguments or to make people go away.

The last sentence (quoted above) is related to the breath of 
consensus.  A process dominated by a few persons or companies is not 
a consensus-based process.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 11:31:10 -0500

On 11/4/21 8:05 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> There is another issue with asking for discussions to slow down, which 
> is that mailing lists have people from many different timezones and 
> with other things going on in their lives.  It's quite unfair for 
> those who aren't awake at the time for the conversation to move on so 
> fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

I agree.   But I think that looks like having a convention for mailing 
list discussions that looks like: "nothing is settled until N days have 
elapsed".   Because people aren't only from different time zones, they 
also have different holidays, some take days off work, there are 
illnesses, the occasional car wreck, and other interruptions to life.

> messages per day and then back off and let somebody else speak".  This 
> is more obvious in an in-person meeting, where it's pretty clear if a 
> couple of people are monopolising the room and not giving anybody else 
> a chance to speak.

I've occasionally, but rarely, seen this kind of monopolising happen.  
But sometimes when an in-person conversation is between a couple of 
people, those are exactly the people who need to be sorting out the 
issue, and the fact that they can rapidly exchange ideas (with an 
occasional other participant adding a point) is what allows the working 
group to make speedy progress while still taking a variety of views into 
account.   This, IMO, is the best kind of result that an in-person 
meeting can produce - though sometimes the conditions simply don't 
permit such a result.

I understand why the microphone queue was instituted - to better 
accommodate remote participants.   But I found it hugely detrimental to 
in-person meetings.  It used to be that in-person meetings were where 
WGs could get convergence on issues that were difficult to sort out over 
mailing lists.   These days, it's almost impossible to use in-person 
meetings in that way.   The microphone queue isn't the only problem - 
room arrangement is another part of the problem (when you have to wiggle 
through a line of closely-seated people just to say something, or arrive 
early to grab a seat next to a microphone), and in-room wifi is another 
part of the problem (when a significant plurality of those in the room 
aren't actually participating in the discussion, it makes it seem as if 
most of the WG doesn't care about what's being discussed).   Another 
part of the problem is use of PowerPoint and similar tools which kill 
interactive discussion unless used with great care.   IETF in-person 
meetings were more productive when we used write-on transparencies 
projected onto a screen.

I don't think it's really the case that someone sending email messages 
takes away time or bandwidth available for others to send messages, but 
I admit that there's a psychological effect of seeing a screenful of 
unread messages in a thread and thinking "ugh, I don't have time to sort 
through all of this right now". Part of what surprises me about this is 
that we used to do fine with long conversations over email, so I wonder 
what has changed.   One explanation might be that it's a lot more 
tedious to read email on handheld devices as compared to a computer 
screen.   One explanation might be that inline quoting and responding 
(mixing portions of subject message and reply) has fallen out of fashion 
and isn't well-supported by modern user agents.   One explanation might 
be that email has become the dumping ground for tremendous amounts of 
low-value information, so every email seems more annoying than it used to.

I suspect that per-day message quotas wouldn't actually reduce the 
burden for readers, because participants would just batch up their 
responses.   And I don't think that discouraging participation is really 
what IETF needs.   I keep looking for ways for us to collaborate more 
effectively and more quickly.

> in-person meeting, the body language of everybody else makes it quite 
> clear that they are getting out of line - but a similar escalation of 
> emotionality on a mailing list doesn't have that real-time dampener 
> effect of the audience feedback you get in a real room - so a more 
> explicit "let's take a pause, go away and think about what's important 
> here" does need to happen.

I strongly disagree with the idea that "everybody else" (however 
communicated) defines (or should define) what is "out of line". Herd 
mentality is counterproductive.    It's vitally important to listen to 
outliers, at least to those who know what they're talking about.    
Sometimes all it takes to prevent a launch of a Challenger space shuttle 
is a lone voice who everybody else is trying to silence.

> "let's take a pause" is used with an underlying "and hopefully you'll 
> just go away because I don't like the point you're trying to make".
>
> Using a pause as a way to make people go away is not cool - but using 
> it to stop somebody saying the same thing over and over, forcefully, 
> and not waiting for others (who might not be awake or paying attention 
> right now) to have a chance to contribute to the conversation first - 
> that's reasonable.  Conversations shouldn't be dominated by those who 
> have the time to write a lot of email at all hours of the day.

In some sense, I agree with the first part of this.   If someone has 
already stated their position clearly they shouldn't have to keep 
repeating it to be heard.   And they shouldn't keep saying the same 
thing over and over.   Unfortunately, sometimes people won't pay 
attention the first time something is said, but two or three times at 
most should suffice.   People should try to realize when they're looping 
and just say "I think we're looping and I don't know what else there is 
to say that hasn't been said already."

It seems to me that the most effective use of a "pause" is to get all 
participants to stop talking, or maybe to only message one another 
privately, and think about things a bit and see if they come up with 
something new.

Keith

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 19:26:49 +0200

Thanks Keith,

I agree,

Best Regards,
AB

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 04:57:39 -0800 (PST)

> > fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

I strongly disagree. Working group dynamics are often mysterious, with patterns
ranging from people intentionally arranging to work at specific times to groups
that seem to have different subsets of people working in shifts. This is
especially true of the most productive groups.

And these dynamics can be fragile. I've seen more than one case where the
productivity of a group was severely damaged by a well-meaning and seemingly
innocuous action.

That said, what I haven't seen, in all my years of IETF partipication, is
someone saying, "I have some additional input to what was said in that big
discussion yesterday" and getting a response saying, "Sorry that issue is
closed for discussion, buzz off." I therefore reject the assertion that a
productive discussion one day closes the door to subsequent input.

And of course can end up being unfair. But nowhere near as unfair as the
advantage gained by being able to attend F2F meetings. (And while people aren't
supposed to say, "That was decided at the meeting." they often do.)

We allow, and even condone, the unfairness of F2F meetings because we believe
the benefits we get to far outweigh the costs.

The same thinking should apply to mailing lists: If a group has latched onto
something that works, is not exclusive, and nobody is complaining, for heaven's
sake leave them alone.

> illnesses, the occasional car wreck, and other interruptions to life.

I don't think "not enough bites at the apple" is one of the IETF's
problems.

> > couple of people are monopolising the room and not giving anybody else

On the contrary, absent an demonstrable operational problem that needs to be
solved, it's not reasonable at all. This is exactly the sort of
well-intentioned thing that can go terribly awry.

> account.

Exactly. But this sort of interaction isn't limited to F2F meetings, and we
should not make rules assuming that it is.

   This, IMO, is the best kind of result that an in-person
> meeting can produce - though sometimes the conditions simply don't

It's also the best result a mailing list can - and sometimes does -
produce.

> meetings were more productive when we used write-on transparencies

The return to F2F is going to be... interesting.

> through all of this right now".

Yes, but this happens all the time. Unless you're able to devote time every day
to IETF work - and who is able to do that? - there are going to be cases when
you're unable to participate for several days or longer, and come back to find
a protracted discussion has taken place.

Moreover, when this happens, it's actually easier to regain context if there
were relatively few participants. The really daunting case is when there are
lots of conflicting views and in order to respond sensibily you have to
build a map of who's in favor/opposed to what in your head.

> Part of what surprises me about this is

I do see a change (for the worse) in the ability to have long productive
conversations, but I question whether it's as large as you seem to think.

I also doubt it's specific to any particular medium. Perhaps the real
explanation is that people increasingly have trouble with concepts that don't
fit tidily onto those small screens, regardless of what app is in use.

> effectively and more quickly.

Exactly right.

> is a lone voice who everybody else is trying to silence.

Complete agreement here.

> privately, and think about things a bit and see if they come up with

For my part, unless it's something where my employer has directed me to
participate, my response to the use of a mandatory pause is almost certainly
going to be to permanently disassociate myself from the effort. Effective
participation is difficult enough without having the added worry of bumping in
to these sorts of limits.

				Ned