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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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.   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.

And yes, some people will be uncomfortable with candor, 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