Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 3 Jul 2019, at 18:29, Keith Moore wrote:

> On 7/3/19 6:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>>
>>> Of course I'm aware that we used
>>> consensus-based decision-making.  But the appearance of consensus 
>>> is
>>> misleading if people aren't permitted to openly express their views,
>>> even if they do so in a suboptimal manner.
>> Consensus is a process, and it takes effort and craftsmanship
>> to build it.  Brutality and the argumentation style you and others
>> are advocating would be a pretty good example of a consensus anti-
>> pattern.
>
> At no time have I advocated brutality, and it's a gross 
> mischaracterization of the argumentation style that I personally 
> prefer.  But your current argumentation style is insulting beyond 
> almost anything I've seen in my nearly 30 year history with IETF.

Keith, if I understand this correctly, you have been arguing (a la 
Crocker's Rules) that it is important that people be able to criticize 
ideas in an unvarnished way and that listeners need to get over any 
personal insult they might feel and instead focus on the content of 
those criticisms. And yet here, instead of focusing on Melinda's actual 
criticisms, you focus on your interpretation of her "characterization" 
of your position[*], criticize her "argumentation style", and are 
"insulted" (and earlier, "belittled" by her pointing out that what you 
say might be in conflict with consensus-based decision making). That's a 
pretty impressive level of irony.

([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that is 
harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which seems 
pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)

So, getting to the substance of both of your comments rather than on how 
they were presented:

> You'd prefer the appearance of consensus obtained from a group that's 
> hostile to technical input?  Real consensus requires openness to 
> input, even input that's unsettling.

You've very much missed Melinda's point. 7282 not only points out that 
it is important to listen to all technical points, but it also makes 
quite clear that a failure of consensus can also come from people 
"giving up". As Melinda says:

>> And I know you've heard this before but I'm going to
>> repeat it because I think it's a huge problem: harshness is going
>> to stop people from expressing their views, as well

If I am participating in a WG and happen to have a showstopper technical 
point, but it is shouted down by someone who, on the grounds of "being 
brutally honest", is simply being an ass, I might very well decide that 
it is no longer worth my energy and walk away from the noxious 
environment. And if nobody happened to really understand my point 
because it was drowned out by all of the "brutal honesty", the consensus 
has failed miserably, as will the protocol being produced.

So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the "brutal 
honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing important 
technical points that might be lost because others in the group won't 
tolerate that "brutal honesty".

>> and it's
>> really not at all clear to me that their participation is less
>> valuable than participation by people who feel muzzled by an
>> expectation of courtesy.
>
> What I have consistently found for my whole life is that it's 
> essential to stand up to abusive people, and people who use lies and 
> intimidation to suppress input and distort facts.    You seem to be 
> speaking out in favor of such tactics, maybe even employing them 
> yourself.    I prefer to believe that you've simply misunderstood me 
> or have a warped view of who I am and what I stand for, but no amount 
> of trying to correct your impression seems to work.   So it's hard 
> to see it as anything other than abuse.

I think it is you, Keith, who has misunderstood Melinda's point, 
accusing her of ill motives instead of presuming there is a good point 
in there and attempting to look for it. I would suggest a reset on your 
part, and you attempting to understand the point being made instead of 
trying to be so "brutally honest" with her.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best