Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?

Jay Daley <> Tue, 20 April 2021 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BB3A15BE for <>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s091Uw3CDcMd; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0957E3A15B8; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DF0F3EB8-C5B9-41FF-B87A-6AAA7027EE8E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:57:26 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Bron Gondwana <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:57:37 -0000

> On 20/04/2021, at 10:25 PM, Bron Gondwana <> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, at 01:16, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> On 2021-04-19 17:14, Keith Moore wrote:
>> > On 4/19/21 11:10 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On 4/19/21 8:02 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> >> That's doable as part of a mentorship.
>> > 
>> > That way, they can learn to snarl like the rest of us :)
>> > 
>> > Keith
>> > 
>> > 
>> Or we assign tasks to old-timers so they can learn not to.
> A little late to the party but there's no better place to hang this comment.
> History is littered with companies and clubs which decided that the right choice was to alienate their existing membership/customer base in order to attract a mythical new market of "grass is always greener" proportions.
> Sometimes they're right, and they succeed wildly.  They were indeed stuck in a local maxima and pivoting was the right choice.  Far more often, they fizzed out.  To the point that there's plenty of advice in the business world to try to keep your existing customers satisfied as you evolve.
> I think one of the key questions underlying trepidation with plans to reorganise the IETF culture along different philosophical lines

How on earth do you get to the position where you believe this is happening?  From my perspective all I see a bunch of people discussing the narrow question of how to avoid an adverse reaction to newcomers who make a suggestion that has been discussed ad nauseam before.  The only way I can see how this could be characterised as "reorganising the IETF culture along different philosophical lines" is if you believe the snarling at newcomers is a fundamental expression of an agreed philosophical basis for IETF culture - neither of which I think is even remotely true.

> are rooted in this question: is there a better maxima we can reach without dying on the way?  Will this pool dry up if we stay here (just to flip the analogy landscape here and make the "maxima" a pool instead)?

> In this analogy, I'm considering people who show up and contribute to the IETF as "customers" - we pay in our time and our meeting attendance and our emotional energy to engage in debate.  We receive enough value in terms of something meaningful to us that we continue to attend - many IETFers remaining with the IETF as they change jobs, or even participating on their own recognizance.  That's a serious commitment, and it's held the organisation through meetings stretching back more than 30 years.
> Some would say that this conversation has already turned away good participants.  Probably.  The more time we spend introspecting on this, the more damage it will cause.  More than any particular outcome would.  Even the most extreme outcomes of "we commit to do nothing in this area for the next 10 years" and "we have a language police who inspect every draft and censor every microagression" are not worse than killing ourselves through reflexive infighting.

Again, I don’t see how you got here.  It reads to me as if you believe there are good participants who take from this conversation that their snarling days are coming to an end and so are choosing to get out early. 

> It's this recognition that the current state is worse than any of the likely outcomes which led me to write a draft in the first place.
> But if we drive away a bunch of people who currently contribute, or demotivate them sufficiently that they put in minimal effort, then we'd sure better have a happy diverse bunch of folks waiting in the wings with the same level of energy and same level of value received that they would stick with the IETF through changing jobs and of their own volition as volunteers afterwards, or we'll find the new pool even less nourishing than our current one.

Other than my reading above I have no idea at all how you think avoiding snarling can drive people away or demotivate them, when the whole point of this conversation so far is how to bring newcomers up to speed quickly enough that they don’t get an adverse reaction to something they say that then puts them off.

Please explain for the benefit of one very confused onlooker.


> Regards,
> Bron.
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
> <>
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director