Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/3/19 6:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I can't immerse myself in this discussion for more than about 15 
> seconds without thinking about the many online communities I have seen 
> implode and dissolve in a pool of anger and recrimination.  A tendency 
> for rhetoric to become polemic and then spiral out of control seems an 
> unavoidable inbuilt feature of the medium.  Therefore, I'm generally 
> in favor of proactive attempts to throw water on flames before the 
> community is placed at risk.

I don't disagree.   We've all seem flame wars get out of hand and rarely 
do they produce good results.

I hope I'm not seen as promoting flame wars.  What I'm trying to promote 
is freedom to raise technical issues, even when people fear (as is often 
the case) that doing so might be seen as impolite.

>   If you think you are a victim of "political correctness", please 
> consider that the people you're mad at probably think they're 
> preserving community health.
I hope we're all trying to preserve community health.

As I see it, there are two sets of concerns:

  * One is that people might be discouraged from speaking freely and
    honestly because they see the environment as hostile.
  * The other is that people might be discouraged from speaking freely
    and honestly because others are telling them that they're being hostile.

IMO both sets of concern are valid.  In a sense, they both have a 
similar undesirable effect of discouraging valuable technical input, 
with consequent harm to IETF's ability to do work.

(I also note that both lines of arguments can be (mis)used to 
deliberately suppress technical input.)

Where I disagree with some is with the idea that the right answer is in 
everyone dumbing down their input to the least common denominator of 
politeness, when (for example) some people's notions of politeness (even 
in the US) include not challenging the opinions of those viewed as "in 
authority".

Instead I think IETF needs explicit community standards for how to 
express input, and standards for how to react to input that one finds 
disagreeable.   And I strongly suspect that such standards should 
resemble Crocker's rules - though again, perhaps not in such an extreme 
form.   I certainly believe that one should confine criticism to 
technical details and/or ideas (not people), that criticism should be 
expressed in terms of what technical problems would or might result, or 
in terms of who would be harmed or disenfranchised by the result, and 
that participants should avoid accusations of improper motive even when 
it seems to be the case (as it sometimes does).   So to cite a concrete 
example, one should be able to call an idea stupid but not to call 
people stupid.  (If you don't like the word "stupid" suggest a better 
one, but we need a way to express that concept.)

>
> It's a pity that "tone policing" has come to mean "attack a position 
> you disagree with based on whining about rudeness" because the literal 
> meaning of the phrase "tone policing" is something I'm generally 
> sympathetic with.  Like any other kind of policing, it can get out of 
> control. But I think it's a necessary activity.

In my experience (mostly outside of IETF but it's starting to appear 
here too), "tone policing" basically amounts to "my prejudices are more 
important/fair than your prejudices, so I have a right to use my 
prejudice as justification to suppress your speech and/or actions 
because I view them as prejudiced because of my own prejudices".

There are milder versions of "tone policing" ("tone feedback"?) that I 
do sometimes find helpful if it reduces the potential for flame wars.

>
> I've been told to shut up and be less rude in at least two IETF WGs 
> and you know what, the people telling me were right.
It can happen to anybody :)

Keith