Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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

>
>> 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.
> 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.

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
> 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.

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