Re: discussion style and respect

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECE21AD0AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MQWYMD1V6uxD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x244.google.com (mail-la0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69A4E1ACD83 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by labgd6 with SMTP id gd6so4569115lab.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0sWgHP9tVxOQpsUM2gnDNwrx7tXjyV0k98ZqY0o+Wno=; b=BvQ9A/VxMTX3lT620sL+CmKnBxMPBDdE1MTgTWRJydTyDzIib76sSRf3H0yvWEpKL2 NM+6Z+qkj1QcX7X+uHbGTCR3gOBNNJtwP5mi77B4zX5sq2uLUXEuLScmLgdzshnGur/7 iO837Ps9i6gCHCy1mzU6SLZTt7CNkcknRwhhP/b4O7HE9y3woD6wBeSxDwUxf1eNWxAE STTdU7sDH8LHFYRciVsaxaH8yC6CQUBI6GFLHy5+PD7wJcYm4a5sMGzI0VfQHHFAr3de PPuX192YpPHOXIGewIor/ZlF/Rl7idQQE910tXGw1Wcd/gGsejfmK5IiwOGD5vhbpjYc sSkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.197.2 with SMTP id iq2mr11948883lac.103.1434055791844; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.203.163 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <3BF40BF3-B7EB-4571-BD7B-D394D4F0CB6C@ietf.org> <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578AB4F.3020406@dcrocker.net> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632D561D2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:49:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0VNDIqhqqmN_xVvBu-HdB4I1wt8
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwi5=TfVd26QOx6THXCKsRrgKpi9rHdST5WQZ=Ayzw+sMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11340b060fa36905184422a0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1y_CPtqSKP6VBEphyY0s2MbfzbI>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:49:55 -0000

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Let me try this again.
>
> At 05:41 PM 6/10/2015, Eric Gray wrote:
> >The biggest problem with this approach is that it tends to work more for
> people who
> >are good at winning arguments, using whatever tactics they choose, over
> those who
> >are right - on those occasions when the two are not the same.
>
>
> So is this a characteristic of the IETF or not?  Never, Sometimes, Always?
>
> In any event, it's not about who's right, its about what's useful to solve
> the problem.  Which causes problems when there are many ways to solve the
> problem, each reasonable, and each supported by its own choir.
>

There is winning the argument and there is winning the outcome. And those
are certainly not always the same in IETF.

What worries me rather more is when the tactics that win an argument inside
IETF are completely different to those necessary for success outside.

The success of the Web was only partly due to technical differences. URLs,
404 not found were both important. But a much more important factor was
that the source code was put in the public domain without strings and
instead of trying to discourage commercial activity, we spent time and
effort trying to get them on board.

Now I see all sorts of proposals to do great things for privacy which begin
'first get rid of Google, Microsoft and Apple' as if this is a strategy for
success.



> >And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group while
> they take
> >their arguments elsewhere.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like "they'll take their toys and go play
> somewhere else"?  Which isn't really good behavior for adults IMHO.


This is a volunteer organization. If people think they are being treated
unfairly, most will leave. IETF isn't this only game in town nor should it
try to be.

I am not aware of anyone who says they want the IETF to flounder but I know
quite a few folk who have packed up and left for venues where they feel
they get a fair hearing.