Re: Sensing what is Right (was Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith,


On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:33 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 
>
> On 11/16/22 05:54, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> (sorry if this message was long but I think it covers my position on the
> subject)
>
> Firstly, I thank you very much for your discussions related to BCP 83 and
> I really enjoy discussing with you and hope you have same feelings.
>
> I appreciate  your discussions also.   I think it's important that people
> with diverse views, and even diverse senses of "rightness" contribute to
> these discussions.  It’s especially important that no particular person's
> or group's sense of "rightness" is held to be inherently more right than
> others'.
>
Thanks for your discussions, I was sick for some days sorry for the
late reply.
Yes I agree that each person/group has a sense of rightness but we in this
ietf_organisation are measuring right by engineering reasoning, not using
faith or religion or expectations or tradition, or culture. It is very easy
to know what is Right and what is Wrong when we all use the common
engineering measure of reasoning. IMO if we focus our objectives and
reasoning measures we will get the best cooperative practices and we will
have the same sense of rightness.

> So I am discussing from Africa Region and I think you are discussing from
> America Region, we may have different traditions but I believe we have the
> same common sense and both we want a progress in the subject
> under discussion. I believe it is a communication_principle that
> ietf_participants involved in one work_subject SHOULD have similar/common
> objectives to progress in work.
>
> Perhaps the trick is to understand, without assuming, what those common
> objectives are.
>
In any world_organisation the objectives are registered and written and not
assumed otherwise there will be no organisation, but if you mean what
participants have in mind we should not discuss that because organisation
policy may consider that and have a solution.

>
>
> For example, I'd like to think that we all believe that the Internet is
> good for humanity, that there's virtue in making it work reliably and
> efficiently and inexpensively, that it should be universally available, and
> that it shouldn't favor any particular country's or company's interests.
>
> (But I'm not sure that we all believe that, or that we all should believe
> that, any more.  After almost 40 years of Internet existence [*] we are
> starting to see ways in which the Internet has not worked out as well as
> many of us hoped it would.  It's easy to see how the Internet has degraded
> our privacy; has made us all subject to surveillance by governments and
> businesses to a much greater degree than before; has made our fragile
> computer systems much more vulnerable to attack; has amplified the voices
> not only of those whose legitimate voices had not widely been heard before
> (good) but also of miscreants, conspiracy theorists, trolls, spammers, and
> others seeking to promote hatred, discord, or otherwise do harm; and has
> created some technology giants who exert far too much control over our
> lives.   So maybe the "good for humanity" needs some qualification.)
>
> [*] If we accept the ARPAnet transition to TCP date of 1983.01.01 as the
> "turning on" of the Internet, though of course some implementation of
> Internet Protocol existed before that.
>
I support with your good objectives, but we still as community need_to/can
add those into IETF WG 's charter (or within IETF statements), within each
IETF WG there are defined objectives the participants need to consider,
also the known good_behavior to have cooperative work and positive
progress. The IETF Chair and IETF WG chairs need to make sure that
discussions are cooperative and making progress, otherwise some one may
tell the community/Lists that the responsible_chair is not doing the
management job.

The IETF community should add your concerns to the IETF Security Area,
IESG, and to the IAB, what did these bodies do about your example/concerns?
(i.e. why no one asked this question to them within the IETF 115 meeting).
Your concerns are important also to Africa_IETF_Region as most ietf_work
was done in other regions. I see that problems do happen between
participants within same IETF Area or same IETF Region, but if we get for
example one japan_participant discussing with one american_participant and
then some say that input discussing was disrupting our work, there should
be a management_consideration of different region/tradition, and that
management should do what is right to solve it within engineering reasoning.

 I was against one announcement that involved input of japan participant
because we don't get much input from Japan and there was a discussing item
with different implementations within different Regions. It is important
for IETF progress to get different Region inputs to make good progress. For
example some one from Africa Region or Asia Region starts to
Discuss/Speak_Up against IPv6 (already finished its Last_Calls within its
Area) it may not be disruptive because the different_IETF_Region needs to
argue as others did argue_in_past within IETF, the IETF_list is not own by
One_Region or One_Implementation (if there is always possibility of
amendment then all ietf_regions have to cooperate). I was happy to see some
discussion which was not disruptive about  draft_ipv10 (i.e. from Africa
Region) or other IPv6_new implementations discussion from different Regions.

Secondly, there is no doubt that Organisation_Experts have strong sense of
> what is Right and strong sensing what is Wrong, also experience sensing
> what is Good, Bad and Ugly within IETF Communications and
> Computing/Analysing of Informations. Sensing is very important in making
> humans and things more intelligent in actions, reactions and interactions.
> Furthermore, having common abilities make communications more cooperative.
> Therefore, IMHO if all participants within any IETF WG have
> common_sense_ability_and_objective then they can be more working progress
> and more cooperative. As Jack Ma said once about AI and Quality of life: "I
> always tell myself that we are born here not to work, but to enjoy life. We
> are here to make things better for one another."
>
>
> In fact, there is (and should be) sincere doubt about those things.  I
> personally question the wisdom of so-called "Experts" and believe it is
> necessary to do so.  (Who gets to decide who is an expert?  And experts are
> frequently wrong.)
>
> Of course we all make judgments about what is desirable and what is bad,
> and some people are more knowledgeable than others.  But I don't know that
> there are any experts who are entitled to have their judgments accepted
> without question.
>

My definition of *Expert* is the Engineer that knows IETF_Organisation very
well and knows the answer of *what is Right* and *what is Wrong*, I also
did not mean there is judgement without questioning IESG, however, within
IETF process we will need a decision making engineering_group (now it is
IESG) to act and respond for successful overall best practices. On the
other hand, the community is responsible to Find Experts and make sure they
are elected into IESG or replace AD who don't follow
rules/engineer_reasonings. If some believe that one IETF AD is not an
expert with evidence/good_reason, then still it is important we maintain
the expert_role to react to IETF process within the Area, they still need
to be cooperative. The participants within IETF Area should advise that AD
and cooperate to make better engineering results, if the AD was not
cooperative then they should replace the AD with an Expert.

> Also our IETF RFC technologies, always depends on that both
> communication/computing ends need to be having the same protocol in common,
> so IMHO, it is very principle engineering to have common sensing protocol,
> and common communication protocol so we can have cooperative results. In
> one important work [1] it looks into IETF decision makings of
> IETF_business_work and I think concluded that we need
> cooperative discussions within IETF decision_makings. So I am one that
> believes that All IETF discussions needs cooperative parties in
> IETF_directors, IETF_participants, IETF_rfc_authors and among all. More
> comments below,
>
>
> I want to say up front that I don’t want to rehash the recent BCP 83
> discussion here.  I don’t think that’s likely to be productive.  I do think
> that that action and the resulting discussion demonstrated that we need to
> make several changes - to BCP 83, to the roles assigned to IESG and the
> Chair, and to our community expectations for speech and behavior.  But we
> need to wait a bit, leave some space, and let the dust settle first.
>

OK for not discussing that in details but need to look at the big picture,
however, you know that many ietf_work is done privately/outside_meeting and
not on the ietf_lists so there are high possibilities of wrong
expectations, but how can we solve management actions while there are
involved private_input or private_reasons? We need Good_Experts to solve
that and we need to do our best in elections. Also we don't forget that the
last bcp83 situation has high expectations of involved many
private_input_complains as reply with repeated public_posting within the
same IETF_Area/IETF_Region, so that is needed to be solved within that
Area/Region by IESG with Area_community, for best future progress.

>
> We absolutely do need cooperation among all parties to work together to
> build consensus.  Unfortunately I believe management actions in recent
> years have been extremely counterproductive to building consensus.
>

I agree we need cooperation among all parties to build consensus. However,
I have not seen on lists that management actions have influenced community
consensus, because in this organisation I try to find Right within
engineering reasoning. It may have happened privately but do we have some
thing we can discuss publicly with engineering reason to solve that problem.



>> As far as I can tell, "common sense" is one of those phrases that people
>> use to argue for some position that they do not know how to support.
>
>
> My meaning of *common sense*  is human_management_common_sense to make
> Right Decision_Makings to such continuous behavior (i.e. as human have same
> sensing of voices, image, etc.). This BCP or this RFC_use_case is related
> to management to use, and not society_individuals to use, so I think our
> discussion can be scoped more on the IETF managerial common sense of
> Managing Human_Organisation's inter_communications and not participants'
> common sense.
>
> IMO, there was no common sense of any kind behind the recent BCP 83
> action, either in starting that action or it’s result.  But maybe we should
> not use the words “common sense” when what we’re probably talking about is
> more accurately described as “common prejudice”.
>
IMHO the "common prejudice" is available in many world_organisations, but
my meaning of common sense is about org_objectives and what is *Right*.
Moreover, I agree that some participants in IETF want to amend BCP 83 (not
delete and not stop disruptive_control), and it is normal in IETF we do
many amendments to solve new use_cases. It is important there should be
less *common prejudice* among participants within
same IETF_Region/IETF_Area. However, there should be *common sense* or
*common objectives* or *common consideration* within each
communication/discussion/action to be maintained for cooperation.

>
>
>> It reflects a presumption that everyone else thinks, or should think,
>> like the speaker thinks.
>>
>
> This BCP was produced by the society and not produced by the management of
> IETF, so the policy_speaker is the human_society of this IETF organisation.
> Furthermore, the IETF_society is choosing their managers not the other
> way around as some organisations do, so our management's common sense will
> consider that as well. There is no doubt that the IETF_society is selecting
> their IETF_Best_Experts and Best_Available. Therefore, I think if I
> understood you the words *the Speaker_thinks* can be pointed at the IESG,
> so my reply is that they SHOULD be the best_ietf_experts otherwise we MUST
> blame the IETF_Society of no courage of talking/speaking.
>
> BCP 83 was produced by the community.  But it was produced in a different
> time, and under different conditions than we have in IETF today, and it was
> intended for a different purpose than that for which it was recently used.
>
I thought it was used correctly, and don't know the different conditions,
but it should be clearly defined within RFC how to be used with
different conditions as it is saying best practice. It should have been
defined what are the conditions of usage.  I also think that the
ietf_community used that 83 action and not only IESG, so both bodies used
it at this time and both are responsible in public.

Best Regards,
AB