Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:32 AM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 6/12/22 10:50, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
>
> It's impossible to speak truth to power without being seen as rude.   It's
> almost impossible to change society for the better without being rude.
> And if we in IETF are no longer trying to make the world a better place, we
> should disband.
>
>
> A 1955 pamphlet tackled controversial topics (unrelated to the IETF) and
> publicized the approach.  Is your argument about an obvious problem which
> is politely ignored to maintain an appearance that an Internet-Draft is
> ready for publication as a RFC?
>
> (I'm not aware of that pamphlet.  Do you have a reference for it?)
>
> My argument is that "rude" (and for that matter "unprofessional") are
> harmfully vague criteria both for sanctioning speech and for self-limiting
> of speech.
>
> The obvious problem that is politely ignored in order to approve an I-D
> for publication might or might not be an example.   Sometimes the obvious
> problems are relatively minor and publication of the document as-is will do
> little harm.  Sometimes the problems will get fixed in AUTH48.   Individual
> participants can decide for themselves whether to support a consensus to
> approve the document, despite its flaws, based on their own reasoning.
> The perfect is the enemy of the good.   But it should not be considered
> "rude" to point out problems, even minor ones, or rude to not support a
> consensus to approve the document.
>
> If on the other hand people believe that they "should not" speak to valid
> technical concerns because they think it might be considered "rude", IMO
> they should think again.  Similar reasoning applies if the question is one
> of speaking up to abusive speech or behavior, or to a declaration of
> consensus when there are clearly significant unaddressed concerns, or to
> suppression of others' relevant input for no defensible reason.
>
> Sometimes there's a responsibility to speak up even when it's
> uncomfortable.
>
> But that's just one aspect of what I'm concerned about.   Mostly I think
> that IETFers need to know that they're permitted to speak up on any
> technical concern, or on any mishandling of process, or any kind of abuse.
>

Actually, I think that should be s/permitted/expected and encouraged/.

Even if it feels "rude" to speak up.   It always feels rude to speak truth
> to power.   And even if the same kind of speech at work would result in
> reprisals - because quite often at work, challenging the boss is a
> career-limiting move even when you're 100% right and the wrong decision
> would harm people.   Fortunately, we don't have bosses in IETF.   And
> that's just one reason that "professional" is a poor criterion for
> inappropriate speech in IETF.
>
>
> The way that people know that it's okay to speak up is to witness other
> people speaking up, even being "rude" or "unprofessional", and not being
> subjected to reprisal.   An atmosphere of candor is important to ensuring a
> safe space for honest technical discussion.
>


Yup, I mostly agree. Professional (well, the opposite of unprofessional)
has always felt weird to me something to be aiming for.

For example, much of my behavior (and attire -  e.g:
https://twitter.com/danyork/status/623142046031720449 ) would be
"unprofessional" if I were working for IBM in the 1970's, or if I were a
barrister / lawyer / etc. The obvious reply to this is "Well, duh, this is
the IETF, not IBM in the 1970s, nor the Old Bailey. We have different
culture and norms, and don't (generally) wear suits or silly wigs. What are
you, stupid?!"

And this both proves and disproves my point — my argument / analogy is
clearly flawed and was a straw man - we were not talking about this sort of
professional / unprofessional, and I tried to lead the argument down an
unrelated path. Calling me out on that should be expected. However, adding
the "duh" and "What are you, stupid?!" moves it from "calling out" /
"candor" to something approaching "rude" and ad hominem (and adding "silly"
is just unnecessarily insulting an outside group).  But, to my point,
"unprofessional" seems more "violating our cultural norms"...but that
assumes that our norms are actually the ones that we want… But, I also
don't think that "rude" is the right word  - "discourteous" actually seems
like the closest I can come up with.

I don't really agree with your "It always feels rude to speak truth to
power." - I fully agree that it can be (and usually is) uncomfortable, and
that it's always possible to *be* rude when speaking truth to power, but I
think that if we try for courteous  (or, at least try to not be
discourteous) we can get on much better.


> And yes, some people will be uncomfortable with candor,
>

So, I looked up "candor" in Merriam-Webster, and it says:
1:  unreserved, honest, or sincere expression : FORTHRIGHTNESS
2: freedom from prejudice or malice : FAIRNESS
3: literary : BRIGHTNESS, BRILLIANCE
4: archaic : KINDLINESS

Sadly, I think that the term is often used with a focus on the "unreserved"
part of the 1st definition, and not in the 2nd or 4th meanings.

W

because they've been conditioned to limit their speech in other contexts.
> But "professional" conditioning of that sort is harmful to IETF's
> purpose.   You can't expect to effectively build consensus among people who
> have been conditioned to withhold their opinions in their workplaces.
>
>
>
> Keith
>