Re: Sergeant-at-arms engagement model

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 11 October 2019 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5408D1202A0; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tneq_rjP4Xau; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-fallback-a1.dreamhost.com (pdx1-sub0-mail-fallback-a1.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D446F120273; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (unknown [10.35.43.115]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-fallback-a1.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B8D2776D2; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CA638241B; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:34:46 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Sergeant-at-Arms <saa@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-arms engagement model
Message-ID: <20191011213445.GA12148@localhost>
References: <9CC87E00-FFFD-44C1-ABD8-ED69C07F4561@ietf.org> <d36843ff-950d-34e7-5841-e0301f03c4e2@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d36843ff-950d-34e7-5841-e0301f03c4e2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrieehgdduieegucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjggfsehtkeertddtredunecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F3zw_zgrNuZyIIMMafUAg5iLqTg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:34:53 -0000

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 08:39:10AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I appreciate this effort, but I do have some doubts about:
> 
> > ...file GitHub issues or send us email at < saa@ietf.org <mailto:saa@ietf.org> > with your feedback.
> 
> as feedback mechanisms for what is genuinely a topic for everyone on
> this list. So I prefer to comment here. Also I hope we'll see the
> final version on the ietf.org site.

I'm guessing they were hoping to keep this from exploding on list.  With
all the controversy we've had, that seems optimistic.  In any case, this
discussion does have to happen on-list.

> There's a basic issue that should probably be recognised somehow in
> the text: in the end, *all* decisions in this area are subjective.
> unprofessional-commentary.md attempts to define the subjective term
> "unprofessional" but relies on various subjective terms:  insulting,
> excessively hostile (BTW, that implies that some amount of hostility
> is OK), hurtful, disruptive. I think we already have evidence that

Some amount of hostility has to be OK.  Especially when the leadership
and/or the SAAs themselves behave questionably.

I hope we won't be seeing any more cases of ADs being reprimanded
off-list while non-leadership participants get reprimanded on-list.
That sort of thing will send hostility through the roof, exactly as it
should, and indeed, has.

> people disagree about the threshold for these terms. So like it or
> not, the judgment is in the end subjective (and that's why, IMHO, it's
> good that we have an SAA team rather than an individual).
> 
> A nit while I'm here: doxxing really isn't a subset of violence. It's
> a different category of unacceptable.

We should be careful not promote unacceptable behavior to the status
"violence" when it isn't.  Doxxing certainly can lead to credible
threats of immediate violence, which isn't far from "violence", and
definitely at the "threatening violence" stage.  Still, it would be
shocking to ever have that kind of event happen on our lists or physical
meetings (if it has and I was not aware of it, well, let me know and
consider me shocked).

Nico
--