Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

[[e-mail]]

Keith Moore wrote:

> On 11/4/21 8:05 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> > > Sometimes, a message about "conduct" is sent to a mailing list to ask
> > > each side to pause the discussion instead of pushing for an opinion
> > > which is completely at odds with the other side.

> > There is another issue with asking for discussions to slow down, which
> > is that mailing lists have people from many different timezones and
> > with other things going on in their lives.  It's quite unfair for
> > those who aren't awake at the time for the conversation to move on so
> > fast that they don't get a chance to have any input.

I strongly disagree. Working group dynamics are often mysterious, with patterns
ranging from people intentionally arranging to work at specific times to groups
that seem to have different subsets of people working in shifts. This is
especially true of the most productive groups.

And these dynamics can be fragile. I've seen more than one case where the
productivity of a group was severely damaged by a well-meaning and seemingly
innocuous action.

That said, what I haven't seen, in all my years of IETF partipication, is
someone saying, "I have some additional input to what was said in that big
discussion yesterday" and getting a response saying, "Sorry that issue is
closed for discussion, buzz off." I therefore reject the assertion that a
productive discussion one day closes the door to subsequent input.

And of course can end up being unfair. But nowhere near as unfair as the
advantage gained by being able to attend F2F meetings. (And while people aren't
supposed to say, "That was decided at the meeting." they often do.)

We allow, and even condone, the unfairness of F2F meetings because we believe
the benefits we get to far outweigh the costs.

The same thinking should apply to mailing lists: If a group has latched onto
something that works, is not exclusive, and nobody is complaining, for heaven's
sake leave them alone.

> I agree.   But I think that looks like having a convention for mailing
> list discussions that looks like: "nothing is settled until N days have
> elapsed".   Because people aren't only from different time zones, they
> also have different holidays, some take days off work, there are
> illnesses, the occasional car wreck, and other interruptions to life.

I don't think "not enough bites at the apple" is one of the IETF's
problems.

> > So it's quite reasonable to say "you're allowed to send up to three
> > messages per day and then back off and let somebody else speak".  This
> > is more obvious in an in-person meeting, where it's pretty clear if a
> > couple of people are monopolising the room and not giving anybody else
> > a chance to speak.

On the contrary, absent an demonstrable operational problem that needs to be
solved, it's not reasonable at all. This is exactly the sort of
well-intentioned thing that can go terribly awry.

> I've occasionally, but rarely, seen this kind of monopolising happen. 
> But sometimes when an in-person conversation is between a couple of
> people, those are exactly the people who need to be sorting out the
> issue, and the fact that they can rapidly exchange ideas (with an
> occasional other participant adding a point) is what allows the working
> group to make speedy progress while still taking a variety of views into
> account.

Exactly. But this sort of interaction isn't limited to F2F meetings, and we
should not make rules assuming that it is.

   This, IMO, is the best kind of result that an in-person
> meeting can produce - though sometimes the conditions simply don't
> permit such a result.

It's also the best result a mailing list can - and sometimes does -
produce.

> I understand why the microphone queue was instituted - to better
> accommodate remote participants.   But I found it hugely detrimental to
> in-person meetings.  It used to be that in-person meetings were where
> WGs could get convergence on issues that were difficult to sort out over
> mailing lists.   These days, it's almost impossible to use in-person
> meetings in that way.   The microphone queue isn't the only problem -
> room arrangement is another part of the problem (when you have to wiggle
> through a line of closely-seated people just to say something, or arrive
> early to grab a seat next to a microphone), and in-room wifi is another
> part of the problem (when a significant plurality of those in the room
> aren't actually participating in the discussion, it makes it seem as if
> most of the WG doesn't care about what's being discussed).   Another
> part of the problem is use of PowerPoint and similar tools which kill
> interactive discussion unless used with great care.   IETF in-person
> meetings were more productive when we used write-on transparencies
> projected onto a screen.

The return to F2F is going to be... interesting.

> I don't think it's really the case that someone sending email messages
> takes away time or bandwidth available for others to send messages, but
> I admit that there's a psychological effect of seeing a screenful of
> unread messages in a thread and thinking "ugh, I don't have time to sort
> through all of this right now".

Yes, but this happens all the time. Unless you're able to devote time every day
to IETF work - and who is able to do that? - there are going to be cases when
you're unable to participate for several days or longer, and come back to find
a protracted discussion has taken place.

Moreover, when this happens, it's actually easier to regain context if there
were relatively few participants. The really daunting case is when there are
lots of conflicting views and in order to respond sensibily you have to
build a map of who's in favor/opposed to what in your head.

> Part of what surprises me about this is
> that we used to do fine with long conversations over email, so I wonder
> what has changed.   One explanation might be that it's a lot more
> tedious to read email on handheld devices as compared to a computer
> screen.   One explanation might be that inline quoting and responding
> (mixing portions of subject message and reply) has fallen out of fashion
> and isn't well-supported by modern user agents.   One explanation might
> be that email has become the dumping ground for tremendous amounts of
> low-value information, so every email seems more annoying than it used to.

I do see a change (for the worse) in the ability to have long productive
conversations, but I question whether it's as large as you seem to think.

I also doubt it's specific to any particular medium. Perhaps the real
explanation is that people increasingly have trouble with concepts that don't
fit tidily onto those small screens, regardless of what app is in use.

> I suspect that per-day message quotas wouldn't actually reduce the
> burden for readers, because participants would just batch up their
> responses.   And I don't think that discouraging participation is really
> what IETF needs.   I keep looking for ways for us to collaborate more
> effectively and more quickly.

Exactly right.

> > Likewise, if a couple of people are yelling at each other in an
> > in-person meeting, the body language of everybody else makes it quite
> > clear that they are getting out of line - but a similar escalation of
> > emotionality on a mailing list doesn't have that real-time dampener
> > effect of the audience feedback you get in a real room - so a more
> > explicit "let's take a pause, go away and think about what's important
> > here" does need to happen.

> I strongly disagree with the idea that "everybody else" (however
> communicated) defines (or should define) what is "out of line". Herd
> mentality is counterproductive.    It's vitally important to listen to
> outliers, at least to those who know what they're talking about.   
> Sometimes all it takes to prevent a launch of a Challenger space shuttle
> is a lone voice who everybody else is trying to silence.

Complete agreement here.

> > The problem, and I think you identify it well here, is when that
> > "let's take a pause" is used with an underlying "and hopefully you'll
> > just go away because I don't like the point you're trying to make".

> > Using a pause as a way to make people go away is not cool - but using
> > it to stop somebody saying the same thing over and over, forcefully,
> > and not waiting for others (who might not be awake or paying attention
> > right now) to have a chance to contribute to the conversation first -
> > that's reasonable.  Conversations shouldn't be dominated by those who
> > have the time to write a lot of email at all hours of the day.

> In some sense, I agree with the first part of this.   If someone has
> already stated their position clearly they shouldn't have to keep
> repeating it to be heard.   And they shouldn't keep saying the same
> thing over and over.   Unfortunately, sometimes people won't pay
> attention the first time something is said, but two or three times at
> most should suffice.   People should try to realize when they're looping
> and just say "I think we're looping and I don't know what else there is
> to say that hasn't been said already."

> It seems to me that the most effective use of a "pause" is to get all
> participants to stop talking, or maybe to only message one another
> privately, and think about things a bit and see if they come up with
> something new.

For my part, unless it's something where my employer has directed me to
participate, my response to the use of a mandatory pause is almost certainly
going to be to permanently disassociate myself from the effort. Effective
participation is difficult enough without having the added worry of bumping in
to these sorts of limits.

				Ned