Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 02 April 2021 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 5AF5F3A1C5D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 WCISiPGUfF04 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 569C63A1C5C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 132GWVqo002002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:32:35 -0400
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 09:32:30 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
Message-ID: <20210402163230.GH79563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu> <1e4feea2-2c81-b31a-04e3-d4c9a4adbaf7@lounge.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1e4feea2-2c81-b31a-04e3-d4c9a4adbaf7@lounge.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OmH27cRDlndAF0dGyqVB54bzHXw>
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, 02 Apr 2021 16:32:40 -0000

Hi Dan,

I'm having a hard time mapping your comments here to the words that I
wrote.  In the absence of some clarification on what stance you think I'm
taking and you are in opposition to, I don't think I can provide much more
in the way of a useful reply.

Thanks,

Ben

P.S. only two drafts were deleted (to my knowledge), not three.

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:31:54PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
>    I'm saddened and shocked at the inability of IETF leadership to
> understand satire.
> 
>    Do you think that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" really advocated
> cannibalism or was it, perhaps, a satirical response to a problem
> that should not have been taken literally?
> 
>    I'll point out that 3 satirical April 1 drafts were deleted at
> the vocal insistence of Niels ten Oever who produced his own unfunny
> April 1 RFC. Lars dutifully responded on twitter that he was
> removing these drafts, and received the applause of the censorious
> who then proceeded to cheer their own contribution.
> 
>    Niels noted that people should make fun of those who have more
> power then they do. Well I think it's obvious who has the power.
> It's the people you're not allowed to make fun of.
> 
>    Dan.
> 
> On 4/1/21 8:20 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > [obligatory disclosure: this is not a statement of the IESG, and I did not
> > consult with any of my fellow ADs on its content before sending.  It is
> > shaped in part by some discussions we had, but the opinions expressed are
> > my own.]
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:40:16PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >>> In other words: is holding or expressing the opinion that "ongoing
> >>> efforts to make the IETF more accessible to all interested
> >>> participants are somehow overblown, not useful, or Orwellian in
> >>> nature" a violation of the code of conduct?
> >> That would be Orwellian in itself, wouldn't it.  I await Lars' response.
> > I note that based on timezones, Lars is likely asleep and that both Friday
> > and Monday are public holidays in his locale, so a response from Lars may
> > not be forthcoming until after that.
> >
> > As far as the quoted question itself, the answer is "no", and we tried to
> > indicate that by saying "contributions of diverse opinions are encouraged,
> > [but] they need to be done in accordance with the code of conduct,
> > respecting the other individuals and opinions in the discussion".
> >
> > Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know
> > of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to
> > take an approach that produces messages structured roughly like (with []
> > indicating portions that only sometimes appear): "I believe that I
> > understand what you would like to have happen in this case, and it is
> > <restatement in my own words>.  [However, the actual text that you are
> > proposing in this draft seems to me to actually have the effect of
> > <something else>.]  This seems problematic to me because I think it will
> > cause <thing>, which I think is harmful.  [Additional justification of why
> > <thing> is harmful.]"  This makes it very clear that there is an active
> > attempt both to understand and acknowledge what the differing party wants
> > to do, and to provide a causality chain to harm that may be caused by that
> > proposal.  It also provides ample opportunities to clarify miscommunication
> > or misundersatnding, as well as to determine whether any deviations between
> > the stated intent and the implications of the specific wording of the
> > proposal are inadvertent.
> >
> > But, while this approach is pretty reliable, it is also a lot of work!  So
> > it's perfectly understandable and normal to only use a subset of it, or
> > other forms of discourse, depending on the situation.
> >
> > I believe that in some situations, satire is a prefecly usable technique
> > and can be a good tool for conveying sentiments akin to those I summarize
> > above as "this sees problematic to me because I think it will cause
> > <thing>, which I think is harmful".  But it, by itself, does essentially
> > nothing to cover the "I understand what you would like to have happen" or
> > "however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft seems to me
> > to actually have the effect of <something else>" parts, and if those cannot
> > be filled in in some other way, it's not a very effective mode of
> > communication, at least for a technical discussion.  Implicitly asking the
> > reader to put in the effort to backfill those other steps can be
> > disrespectful, especially when there is a large gap to backfill, because it
> > is asking the entire reader base to independently reimplement what could
> > have been provided once by the writer.  (The size of this gap will, of
> > course, vary from person to person and situation to situation, so
> > reasonable people will tend to be accomodating of some level of variation.
> > For some very well-done satire the gap is very easy to fill.)
> >
> > Returning now from the abstract level to this specific draft: in this case,
> > speaking for myself as a reader, the gap between the presented satire and
> > my understanding of the intent of what is being proposed in the terminology
> > effort is so large that I simply cannot bridge it on my own.  The presented
> > scenario is so different from my expectations that it's not even a
> > "worst-case scenario" or "bad dream"; it just simply doesn't compute for
> > me.  Maybe this is a lack of creativity on my part, and someone will step
> > in and help show me what I'm missing, but I doubt that I'm alone in this
> > regard.  I would have expected a contribution to an ongoing technical
> > discussion to be respectful of the readership and ask less of the reader in
> > understanding what point is being made.  Otherwise, the satire just looks
> > like standalone satire and not a contribution to a technical discussion.
> > (I hope it goes without saying that there's nothing intrinsically
> > problematic about satire as satire, though IETF mailing lists are probably not
> > the best place for it.)  But, I'm willing to operate on the assumption
> > that we are still having a technical discussion about the proposed TERM
> > working group.
> >
> > In that vein, Ipromise to put in the effort to receive and attempt to
> > understand any reasoning that is sent to me about why the proposed
> > terminology work is not something that the IETF should undertake.  I
> > especially encourage messages covering aspects related to what I write
> > above about "however, the actual text that you are proposing in this draft
> > seems to me to actually have the effect of <something else>", since I think
> > I am seeing significant gaps between what the proponents of the work are
> > saying the work is intended to do and what the opponents of the work are
> > saying it will actually do.  The proposed TERM charter is currently on the
> > agenda of the 2021-04-08 IESG telechat.  Per
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/6yVtXkj3wJjQxQA29On8-Lyvwmw/
> > please send your comments to iesg@ietf.org by 2021-04-05.
> >
> >
> >
> > In closing, I'd like to follow up on a couple points from Lars' note.  While
> > IESG members are saddened by this draft, we do not claim a right to not
> > be sad.  Lloyd can post this draft, and the community members (including me)
> > can respond to it, and I am sad about what I see as a detrimental effect on
> > the organization, [1] but the draft is still up, and we are talking about it.
> > There were two other drafts posted today that were removed from the I-D
> > repository for being clearly in violation of the code of conduct, but Lars'
> > note says only that this draft is "not in alignment with our code of
> > conduct", which can cover many points on a spectrum.  I don't think this
> > says that Lloyd is bad or that Lloyd's opinions are bad, just that we can
> > do better at having a respectful technical discussion that is more closely
> > aligned with the code of conduct.  Nobody's perfect (we will never be
> > perfectly aligned with the code of conduct), and we understand that on
> > occasion we all will get close to the boundary of the code of conduct, and
> > that's not intrinsically a failing on our part when it happens.  What's
> > most important is that someone notices when we're veering astray and how we
> > respond when it's pointed out.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > [1] I see this draft as having a detrimental effect because, in constructing
> > an elaborate work of (what I assume to be) satire but introducing it as "a
> > contribution" with no acknowledgment of its nature or attempt to "bridge
> > the gap", the author seems to be setting up the sense that the efforts
> > related to terminology are jocular as well.  I can understand if people who
> > are advocating the work feel disrespected when receiving the sentiment that
> > their effort is a joke, and I see how that would in practice make us a less
> > open organization.  While there is value in satire, if I have to estimate
> > the value that this draft, as presented (with minimal introduction on the
> > list) adds, and compare it against an estimate of the harm it causes, the
> > net effect seems more likely detrimental than beneficial, and so I am sad.
> >
> 
> -- 
> "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
>