Re: Recent threads concerning sergeants-at-arms

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 9/7/2019 8:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 07/09/2019 02:24, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> I believe that the notion that we must choose between an environment
>> where we can disagree — about anything that is in scope for IETF
>> discussion — and an environment in which every person is treated
>> with dignity, decency, and respect (to quote BCP 54) is a false
>> choice.
> I fully agree and didn't mean to imply those were mutually
> exclusive - they are not. Maybe it'll help if I try phrase
> my concerns differently.
>
> I maintain that we need to be very careful in how we try get
> to a place where we bother respect one another as people and
> where we feel free to question anything relevant. It'd be easy
> enough to end up putting too much emphasis on one and not the
> other. While historically we've not sufficiently emphasised
> being respectful, it is also possible that efforts to encourage
> better behaviour could accidentally stymie an environment where
> we have a goal that anyone can and will question anything
> relevant.
>
> I do want an outcome where people are commonly more respectful
> of one another, but don't really want people to think they
> need be respectful of other people's positions - regardless of
> whether that position is based on one's employer or of having
> been selected for something by nomcom. And I do see that as
> a danger that (maybe inherently?) accompanies efforts to get
> us to behave better.
>
> Lastly I think the fact that we're a volunteer-driven body
> without members also has an impact in that we cannot as
> easily punish whatever one might consider bad behaviour as
> is possible in a company or membership organisation. I think
> our efforts to encourage better behaviour need to take that
> into account. To some extent, with our setup we need to be
> able to live with rougher-edges in debate as anyone can turn
> up. And that "anyone can turn up" is a strength that I think
> we all agree we don't want to lose.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>> Best, Alissa
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Stephen Farrell
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>

>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I think we want an environment where we are all respectful of the
>>> people participating (or not participating) in the IETF, but we
>>> explicitly do not want participants to be overly respectful of the
>>> (current) organisational structures, nor of the fact that one us
>>> happens to be in a certain role etc.

I've come to really dislike the word "respectful" in any of our context 
as it by definition implies both offering respect and deference.    
Respect is so culturally circumscribed as to make figuring out when 
you're offering enough respect in a given circumstance difficult.  
Deference quickly becomes expected based on role rather than good 
technical arguments.  It tends to impose a hierarchy where there should 
be none.

> /adjective/
> adjective: *respectful*
> feeling or showing deference and respect.

> Noun: Respect: due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or 
> traditions of others.

Very hard to make an objective evaluation of respect, let alone a 
subjective one.    Becomes even harder when cultural traditions and 
structures come head to head with IETF traditions and structures.

(As a really bad example that hasn't hit us yet - the Billy Graham rule).

>>> That does differ from bring
>>> "professional" at least as that term is understood by some
>>> reasonable people. How to phrase that well is tricky but I'd say
>>> doable if we somewhere explicitly note that the kind of openness
>>> we aim for requires us to encourage criticism of the subsets of us
>>> acting in leadership roles, and of the roles as well, and that such
>>> criticism ought be actively encouraged, as long as it's not
>>> personally disrespectful. And as a corollary, as nomcom appointees
>>> we ought not take ourselves, nor that we're acting in particular
>>> roles, too seriously:-)

Professional has its own problems in that it brings us back to 
respectful and courteous.   Courteous starts getting us to where we want 
to be.:

> /adjective/
> adjective: *courteous*
> polite, respectful, or considerate in manner.

Somewhat circular, but introduces "considerate":

> adjective: *considerate*
> careful not to cause inconvenience or hurt to others.

And that's a bit better as it's easier to understand "inconsiderate" 
behavior or speech is that which inconveniences or hurts others.  But 
still, that's not quite modeled correctly.

What I think we want is "careful not to cause unnecessary inconvenience 
or hurt to others", as there will be times that either or both is 
required to advance the IETF, or the topic or the IETF culture in a 
meaningful manner.  I use "hurt" here in the most general sense of hurt 
feelings, reputational harm (e.g. identifying a malicious falsehood, 
play for pay, hits to status etc) and not any form of physical harm.

Call it "consideration informed by necessity".


>>>
>>> Secondly, we also do not want IETF participants to be shy
>>> criticising what they consider technically bad ideas. That's an
>>> area where some of us go wrong when we step over lines between
>>> criticism of ideas and get too close to being critical of other
>>> IETF participants. (For example by imputing motives, which can be
>>> done very politely and tangentially but is nonetheless wrong.)

In the technical discussions, imputing motives is almost always 
"inconsiderate" :-) e.g. wrong.  But even then hauling out the submarine 
patent and asking someone to explain their motivation for including 
something in that patent in the discussion without telling people 
about... pretty much spot on.   There are other examples.  Sometimes, if 
you don't understand the behavior, the right answer is to ask for an 
explanation and try and relate to observed facts.  I think its probably 
ok to point out any variance between said explanation and said facts.


>>> I
>>> think there's definitely room for improvement here, (myself
>>> included) but I'm less sure how to ensure that improvement doesn't
>>> also damage the culture of openly criticising ideas. So yes, let's
>>> work on being better, but carefully, and taking into account the
>>> subtle differences between the IETF and a company, university, or
>>> other kinds of organisation. (In some respects, I think we're much
>>> more like a largely volunteer-driven amateur-sports organisation,
>>> which has different needs, and dangers, compared to a regular
>>> for-profit company or even a professional-sports setup.)

We are in no way a regular, organized organization.  The folk in 
leadership roles are working with delegations from the community of 
certain privileges and authorities, and that's true from the chairs down 
to the various WG chairs and editors.  That probably creates some 
creative dissonance between folks used to being able to order minions 
about in their day jobs and those trying to herd cats at the IETF 
sometimes forgetting and using their day-job approaches instead.   We 
probably collectively have an ego quotient substantially higher than the 
average and that will lead to a bit more ... noise? ... static? ... in 
any given discussion than might be seen in a corporate or more organized 
organization. I personally think it's part of the strength - even if 
sometimes I lose the arguments.


I mostly agree with what you're saying - I really just want to try to 
eliminate a bit more of the subjectivity that seems to be swirling 
around the various meanings of "professional", "respectful", "dignity" 
and "decency".

Later, Mike

> /noun/
> noun: *dignity*
> the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

> noun: *decency*
> behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or 
> respectability.
> the requirements of accepted or respectable behavior



>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Cheers, S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>>