Re: Terminology discussion threads

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 14/08/2020 18:42, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:30:14AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>
>> On 8/14/2020 9:44 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Thanks Paul. Well, said.
>>>
>>> Despite the long history of the IETF discussion list being awful, I've
>>> felt an obligation to stay on it. However, it has now become so bad
>>> that I can longer do so.
>>>
>>> I would like to thank the IESG for creating the last call list so
>>> that it is still possible to participate in the business of the IETF
>>> without being part of this toxic environment. I'll see you there
>>> and in the WGs.
>>
>> There is something systemic here. We see that behavior too many times. I
>> was at the receiving end of similar abuses during the RFC-ED discussions
>> last year and I feel the pain for Alissa, but there are many more
>> examples. The IETF list functions as some kind of general assembly, but
>> without any rules of order. The loudest voices dominate the stream and
>> skew the consensus, which encourages a loudest-voice behavior and
>> discourages consensus building.
>>
>> The question is, what to do?
>
> The IETF way would seem to be to write up several drafts with various
> proposals and solicit comments.  Options could include:
>
> - just shut it down
> - rate-limit all posters
> - create a new role specifically tasked with deescalation and
>    consensus-building
> - your idea here

Ben

   The IETF way is also to fire up mailing lists to address a particular 
topic, which may or may not result in a WG, an I-D, a change in 
behaviour and so on.  With hindsight, this topic should have been 
switched to a different list at the latest by the beginning of August 
with the SAA saying discussion here is now out of order, go there 
instead or I will suspend you, which, I think, would have gained more 
support than the actions that the SAA took.

The main IETF list has had these cytokine storms many times, although I 
cannot recall people leaving the list before, so I expect they will 
happen again so someone, IETF Chair, SAA or such like should have a 
finger on the pulse and be ready to act, to divert the traffic to 
another list next time that it happens.

I go back to to the start of all this.  Look again at
"The IESG believes the use of oppressive or exclusionary language is
harmful.  Such terminology is present in some IETF documents, including
standards-track RFCs, and has been for many years."
Of all the posts I have seen since that one, I find none as offensive as 
this one; can you see it?  Can the IESG see it?

It says that oppressive or exclusionary language is present, no 
explanation, no evidence, we say it is so it is so, here are the tablets 
of stone (perhaps in text I have written, who knows?)

Wow, want to start a firestorm, well that is how you do it.  The IETF 
often describes itself as organised bottom up and the IESG is not what I 
would call the bottom.

I speculate that something happened in the IESG to trigger this but have 
no idea what that would be but that statement, to me, was always going 
to trigger aggressive responses but why the statement was worded as it 
is I cannot tell but it may be something for the IESG to reflect on.

Tom Petch


> -Ben
>
> .
>