Re: Tolerance

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/17/19 8:40 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> FWIW, the thing that makes it hardest to participate in the IETF are the long threads that never go anywhere. They serve as a DoS attack on the entire IETF. I realize hit may sound hypocritical for me to say this, since i offend in this way from time to time.  Hostility is a huge problem and I don’t mean to minimize it, but I think this is arguably worse.

I think I understand the problem and agree that long conversations are 
tiring and discourage participation.   But how does one know when 
posting that the thread will never go anywhere?   Is it wrong for people 
to continue to seek resolution just because others don't care or have 
given up?

My rule of thumb is when I find myself saying something for the third 
time, with nothing new to add, consider that maybe twice was enough.   
But sometimes people think that a speaker is looping when really he or 
she has been refining his or her argument, maybe even trying to suggest 
a compromise that accommodates others' viewpoints or concerns also.

I've often wondered if better tools would help.   Let everybody with an 
opinion post his or her position, a summary and a detailed argument if 
the speaker wishes.  Show the different positions side-by-side on a web 
page.   Permit readers to comment, but also permit speakers to refine 
their positions and make it visually obvious when they've done so.   
Maybe show some sort of heat map of the spectrum of opinions (but not 
too soon).

I'm intrigued by the possibility, but there also appear to be several 
ways that this approach would actually hinder discussion rather than 
facilitate it.   One example: whoever is able to frame the topic of a 
discussion can often more-or-less dictate the outcome, and forcing 
categories onto discussions can exacerbate the problem.

> Please think of your audience.  If you are adding to the conversation, great..  If you are just communicating because you feel unsatisfied but have nothing really new to add, there is almost certainly some better (less expensive) way to satisfy that need.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with a speaker agreeing with 
one idea or another, including agreeing from a different perspective, 
even though in some sense the speaker is not adding anything new.   To 
me that seems far better than having only two or three people doing all 
the talking.

Keith