[Gendispatch] on the response of gendispatch chairs to Dan Harkins email
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 17:32 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F43E3A0A22 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WhJ8OGJxEtpj for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702163A0A1F for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807A35C00D0 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:32:55 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=lmgJCM 7331Etxu/KLK7116uYaVimO2YK1jZDTGNn6Iw=; b=abhDmX5E+l23DWhtf4nM3e I3aZ33lTHT5Czx+cn4kEjB+ex/0LrCKsVi/o4EZCCtN54E2vxx8glgbaoaKBU7ru sXdsPMIqApoSK0i3Ez88Jlv5ubKNuM2YdWewzdG8klXkVtS3Fr4AU7g7sdDIUPmb OUjxkz5z7MHhqAEo2a4RCtapUii/S6UVl1mGQaVIDDgtSIZ6brs4BRXqgORMamcw tmaQkgIajPHbeg0zwHEiMIJKi5FxgkptPS5zrZ4TP4Jln7DFY4VINE8fRVwAuwEQ 6NLqFfdf2JfLMKsVNFnp491o7pC9ZY1u8CnVsBbHDb6XJKrpB2eb/c8dWFujXJXg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:R9mJXxDiUdgjURsiTXO9DaGaOoKfci0aQRMXI9NGnaCajP0zkfBW8A> <xme:R9mJX_i8rTqaQk7wYqDoeuqe0Px3i7dbCO_VYS9CzA7BLp_XYqIKBO9s8tbNSM6YJ ObJkvvzjzd42g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrieehgdduudehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefvhffukffffgggtgfgsehtkeertd dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeetfeevhedufeelvd eikeefjedtvdehhfejhfdtheehfedvtdelgeeugfefuedtueenucfkphepuddtkedrvddv uddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:R9mJX8mdwE_eUd_Ph5om_bUGRss5EXeX4zjYnNdlfifza82UVHYBXw> <xmx:R9mJX7ww9Qo7AD49gnYYItVFmtxuYSN5xpK83smCnHi6IjMmaD_Xxg> <xmx:R9mJX2RswiX5sQMDxYs1gCxbVs8VWR9FInveBcS8pQ5MwbJYu4E5nQ> <xmx:R9mJX0Cr2oa17QOhoKDj_Br5BQt2Mug5ajDpKZIHbU0I5pX5GeR6gg>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CB4A2328005A for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:32:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <179f96b8-4989-667d-d2a8-e0e5b3d05f4e@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:32:53 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/fVYMlp7ZEZ9oOuCmhxtnvC8Lemg>
Subject: [Gendispatch] on the response of gendispatch chairs to Dan Harkins email
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:32:58 -0000
Ok, I read Dan Harkins email of 13 October once again and in less haste than last time. His email could be worded better, to seem more like criticism of the document and less like personal criticism. But I do not find it inappropriate. Rather, I find the chairs' actions concerning for multiple reasons. Most of Dan's email could be interpreted, and I believe should be interpreted, as criticism of the draft-knodel document. Where Dan's email borders on personal criticism, I don't find it inappropriate given the history and context of this discussion. Yes, Dan's email could be accused of straying into ridicule ("I'm sorry, have lives been threatened?") and even insult ("This is magical thinking. It's unhinged from reality.") But his criticism is still about the document and the logic that really does appear to be behind it. Slight differences in wording in Dan's email might have created a bit more light and a bit less heat, but in my judgment probably not by much. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with his questioning the reasoning behind draft-knodel. And this discussion is in the context of a document that was originally arguably insulting to IETF participants and in violation of its conduct guidelines. On balance, I don't think Dan's response was anywhere nearly as far out-of-line as the original document, and I don't see why Dan's email should be subjected to pushback when draft-knodel seems to have been actively encouraged by the WG chairs and/or IETF leadership. ---- I think WG chairs now find themselves in a conflicting position whenever there's enough heat around a discussion to cause tempers to flare. Fundamentally the chairs should be there to ensure fairness - that all well-informed views are able to be presented, that the process is followed, that any declared consensus (or lack thereof) is visible and therefore uncontroversial. But chairs are also expected to push back on abusive input from participants. Done properly, this serves the same purpose of making sure that all well-informed views can be presented. But visibility is essential. When the chairs take it upon themselves to privately push back on participants who in the chairs' judgment have spoken inappropriately, this creates multiple problems. One is that this can (and in the past has been) a way for chairs to put their thumbs on the scale, to bias the discussion in a way that discourages a participant from contributing their point of view, and more generally have a chilling effect on group discussion. Particularly with controversial topics, it's easy for chairs (even those who are sincerely dedicated to IETF's principles of consensus and openness), to let their own biases color their judgment about what is or is not appropriate speech. When such pushback is done publicly, there is a chance for other participants to observe the chairs' actions and call them out (or appeal) if they believe the chairs have acted unfairly. This transparency thus provides some protection to the community against inappropriate biases on the part of chairpersons. But when the pushback is done privately, it not only unfairly biases against the participants whom the chairs have criticized, it also encourages distrust in the IETF process. Also, if the chairs are sending warnings as required by disciplinary process, in response to a participant's speech, when more serious disciplinary action might result in the future from similar speech, those warnings should be clearly labeled as process messages. They should include specific references to the supposedly-offending speech and the rules which are allegedly violated by such speech. It's much better for such warnings to be clear, than for them to be ambiguous. Such a warning should not appear friendly and informal when it's actually a shot over the participant's head. Participants need a clear understanding of where the process facilitators believe the boundaries are, both so they can observe them, but also so they can challenge them. I'm not saying that it's never appropriate for chairs to send informal private feedback, but such informal private feedback should not be considered part of a disciplinary process and should probably be used only rarely. And making such feedback public has the effect of "raising the bar" for such feedback, since the chairs don't want to seem petty in public. And that in turn requires a somewhat greater tolerance for heated speech and controversy on the part of group participants than might otherwise be the case. This, IMO, is a Good Thing. ---- Back to thumbs on the scale. The chairs (and IETF management also, I believe) gave draft-knodel an airing despite arguably abusive content in that document. I don't fault them for that - I'm not a big fan of prior restraint - but I do think it was inappropriate of the chairs to push back on multiple people for criticizing that document even though the criticisms seemed less offensive and less in violation of IETF conduct guidelines than the document itself. So yeah, I think the chairs acted inappropriately, and I hope they see fit to retract their pushback. Keith