Re: [apps-discuss] We have no lambs

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Let me say up front that I think this entire conversation is great, and 
I think we are all getting a great deal out of having it. I know I am. 
And I do agree with Barry on some of the more specific points, but I 
suspect that we will end up simply agreeing to disagree on the broader 
issue. And I do think it is worth having this conversation, because I 
hope it will lead to some understanding of not just my style, but my 
motives.

On 5/11/11 5:43 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hm.  I thought I wouldn't comment on this, but I think I will, because
> I want to make something clear about how I think about this.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM, SM<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>    
>> At 13:37 11-05-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>>      
>>> So, I wouldn't have said "useless".  I might have said "of very
>>> limited value in helping the IESG with its determination of
>>> consensus about technical quality and adequacy of review".
>>>        
>> That is the politically correct way of stating it.  It may help some people
>> understand what the IESG would like.  However, sentences like that are
>> against IETF best practices. :-)
>>
>> Pete has taken a rather unusual approach.  I would qualify it as open.  It
>> is to encourage discussion on an equal footing.
>>      
> Here's why I think being "politically correct" is important:
> If it's someone's manner to be blunt, and to expect that we won't take
> him *too* much at his exact words, that's fine, and we learn that.
> And if someone is wont to say "Eff all y'all.  I'm going to ignore any
> comments I choose to," well, again, we consider who's saying it and to
> what extent we think he really means that... and everyone has a right
> not to pay attention to anyone in particular.  Except....
>    

First, I don't think you'll find anywhere in my original note on the 
"support publication" thread that I said I would absolutely ignore or be 
closed to the input. I did say that I "find these 
statements...well...useless." I did say that such commentary on the 
publication itself is "really, truly, not important." And I did joke 
(smiley face included) that I would have to assume that the reason for 
such a statement is "because you have a wager on how soon we will get to 
RFC 10000. :-)" But I never did say I'd ignore them. I did say later (in 
reference to Ted's comments) that I "*might* ignore comments that come 
without context because there really is no way to evaluate what they 
mean", but that's just to say that if I can't figure out the meaning of 
a statement, it's simply not going to impact my thinking on a particular 
topic. But all of this is somewhat less important than what follows:

> When someone accepts a position on the IESG, the IAB, or the IAOC --
> I*, as we collectively call them -- s/he no longer gets to be the
> gruff "eff all y'all" person s/he once may have been.  S/he has to
> support the open system we have, and not be closed to input.  That's
> why someone on I* saying "I won't listen unless you say it the way I
> want to hear it," bothers me.  That's why I think it's important to
> put it more the way John did -- so people understand that you're not
> just brushing people off, but see what you need and why.
>    

As I said above, I don't think that anything I said means that "I won't 
listen". However, let's talk for a moment about style:

There is a circumstance in which I think one really does have to take 
care to act and sound as open to all input and impartial as possible: 
when you are in a position of power in a truly hierarchical 
organization. In that case, the fact that you have power over other 
people requires that you not only have be open, but you have to act more 
open than you normally would. A position of power means that the less 
powerful folks will be reluctant to confront you, so you have to be 
exceedingly careful to listen for quieter voices and coax people into 
expressing their views frankly and honestly. And my real concern here is 
the inverse effect of the above: When someone starts acting measured in 
their statements and Solomon-like in their judgments and pronouncements, 
it creates an air of authority. It puts people in mind that you are, by 
virtue of your position, in power.

Call me naïve, but the IETF is not supposed to be a hierarchical 
organization like that (behavior of some folks and some adopted 
procedures notwithstanding). We're supposed to be a consensus 
organization, where we all listen to well-reasoned technical arguments, 
even if they come from someone new; where the mere fact of having grey 
hairs (on the face, head, legs, or otherwise shaved off of any of those) 
does not entitle you to say, "It must be this way and I don't have to 
explain why"; where the people in "leadership" are just other passengers 
on the bus, not kings, to whom one can say, "You're wrong, and here's 
why, and that makes you, Mr./Ms. Leader, in the 'rough' part of the 
rough consensus"; and where the participants in the IETF are the ones 
who take responsibility for the documents being of good quality, not the 
leadership.

Some of that is happening now. Some is definitely not. Not being 
hierarchical and having everyone be responsible makes lots of folks 
(leadership and regular participants alike) very uncomfortable. Being in 
a hierarchy means that there is normally someone above you who can 
direct you to the right path if you need, or take the heat when you make 
a mistake. Being in leadership in a hierarchy means you can make a 
decision and not be pushed back on by people under you. These are all 
very comforting thoughts and not having that backstop is worrisome. And 
many of us now come out of corporate culture (as against academia), 
where hierarchy is what we know. But I'm doing my best to push back on that.

So, when I say that "I support the publication of this document" is 
useless, what I'm saying is: Sure, you can choose to assume that I, or 
other ADs, or the rest of participants, "know who you are" and therefore 
must take such contextless statements seriously. But really, I don't 
think you should say things that way. I think you should state the 
technical (or other) grounds that you think this document is useful or 
important or implementable (or not). Or you might choose to assume that 
such statements count as a vote for the document. But really, this is a 
consensus organization, and you don't get to "count" just because you 
grunted "yes". New folks shouldn't think that "silence followed by 
voting" is a reasonable modus operandi, and you shouldn't act that way 
either. You might count, if I happen to have enough context, but if 
another AD or another participant comes up to me and says, "Who is this 
bozo? I don't believe he ever even read the document", it would be 
rather nice to be able to point back to something more concrete than "+1".

Yes, I definitely want people to feel that I am open to their input. (I 
want people to feel that everyone is open to their input.) On the flip 
side, I also want people to feel responsibility for the output of the 
IETF. And I don't want people thinking that I am some oracle from on 
high that has any particular power over them. I take my role to be (a) 
judging the consensus of the community and (b) inputting my experience 
and expertise when I can, and I take them in that order.

So it comes down to my style to get that ethos instilled. I'm inclined 
to say to people (new and old alike), "You'd better explain your 
reasoning or you're not going to get heard". Now, I take your point that 
such talk might put off some people. And that means that I also have a 
responsibility to mentor new folks (or even not-so-new folks who are 
disinclined to challenge authority) to understand that nobody gets to 
rely on their station to justify their statements, and that anyone can 
push back on anyone else, myself included. But I am taking a risk that 
people will think I'm not going to listen to them. However, I prefer 
that risk to the one where I act "exalted" and speak in such ways and 
end up where people think I'm "in charge". I am not (as a friend of all 
of ours said to me recently) "the Last Defender of Camelot". I'm not 
going to talk like that, and I don't want you to talk to me like that.

You may all feel free to decide that I'm completely full of it. That's 
what this organization is supposed to allow. In fact, if 20 of you think 
that I am sufficiently full of it at any point, we have a procedure to 
deal with that. But I do hope that I am setting up the world in such a 
way that anybody feels they can yell at me first and convince me that I 
am "in the rough."

> So I don't really look at it as being "politically correct", but as
> being clear without being exclusive.
>    

As do I.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]