Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

The discussion in this thread has grown completely useless because it is layer upon layer of irrelevant distraction, discussing general statements, while the specifics are rather clear.  But to play on with the game...

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
> 
> I don't think that's a valid accusation, or at least I don't see the similarity.   There's a huge difference between trying to illustrate a problem versus stirring up trouble just for the sake of amusement.

The effect (of someone stirring trouble because of a failed attempt at illustrating a problem or just for amusement) is the same (and I was admonished not to do too much inference about intents already).  If the IETF makes its rules in such a way that it can’t deal with griefers because it never can be certain about the intent, we are in trouble.

>> More gravely speaking, the founding principle of the country I’m living in is that one needs to be vigilant against attempts to destroy its freedom.  I fully subscribe to this principle, even if it means that Nazis don’t get freedom of speech here.
> 
> Ok but there's more than one way of interpreting that principle even among those who fully subscribe to it.  One is that freedom of speech (for example) must be preserved even though it sometimes makes people uncomfortable; another is that certain groups known to cause malice have their freedom of speech curtailed. Reasonable people should be able to disagree about which approach is better.

“Uncomfortable” is not a useful scale.  Truth is often uncomfortable.  
I’m all for shutting up malice.  Countries have to do this with extreme care, organizations not quite as much.  Checks and balances are good in either case.

> And if those Internet-Drafts have resulted in a conversation about the propriety of suppressing speech that is critical of popular ideas, I think that's a Good Thing, and probably a necessary thing, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

I think it is a bad thing, because it is a waste of time to discuss nuances of general principles when the point was to act, fast.

> I am continuing to press this issue because I wish to be vigilant against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and consensus-based decision-making.

I understand that, but the level of noise is already a (D)DoS attack.

> I am also profoundly uncomfortable with an idea that IETF participants have a duty to not "rock the boat" because I've so often seen in other contexts how that social convention protects abuse, corruption, discrimination, and/or irresponsible behavior.  

There is a spectrum between the Catholic Church of Germany and a henhouse [forgive me if I shouldn’t use that term].  I think we are rather close to the henhouse.

And there is indeed a duty of members of an organization not to damage that organization.  That has to be balanced with other duties, as the Catholic Church of Germany is slowly learning now, but it is a duty.

> I realize that many people implicitly consider this duty part of "professional" behavior, and I explicitly reject the idea that it's desirable.   I do think that one should consider whether "rocking the boat" will make things better or worse overall, but there's no general duty to not do so.

Duty I don’t know, but there should be a reason for actions that waste a lot of energy.

>> (OK, the amount of transfer effort needed to translate these principles to what’s going on in the IETF right may be high — IETF is no country, but the point is that not every dissent is noble and deserves protection.  That is not an easy line to ride, but relitigating ad nauseam every decision the IESG makes to protect the IETF is not productive.  The submitter has even made known that he now considers his contribution rushed, and has apologized!  My mother would have said: Schwamm drüber.)
> 
> This wasn't just any decision, it was a decision to suppress speech that was (in my interpretation) critical of potentially harmful ideas and even of IETF leadership.    

Several people here have explained why this was the right decision.
Apart from overly general fundamental considerations, I haven’t heard anyone actually coherently argue it wasn’t.

> I would recommend that decisions to suppress speech be taken with extreme care, without undue haste, and with full transparency.  

At this level of generalization: Absolutely not.

I was in a WG meeting a couple of decades ago, chaired by the unforgettable Tom Taylor.
When the discussion completely derailed, he watched this for a few seconds, and then used all his physical presence to shout into the mike “THAT’S ENOUGH”.  
Speech suppressed, meeting saved.

Of course, we need appeals processes and all that to handle abuse of power.
We do have that!

Grüße, Carsten