Re: Tolerance
Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 15 July 2019 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 DB520120132 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 f2zHcyyVpdZn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FE25120115 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id p15so16760176eds.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QVZoRDFNB4bWnITonQXJ6Rnl8D20c3kpQd7MlbJgeSs=; b=JofBBwbrD0dqB6qZ1KnQwPOIlxG8blndZePhFPbZfpUQk4GIO0zhl/NMZK5LiZyHJA cj37dZpgRZkxrbE77V7SIbjzzLBSfivNjB+hwZ9Hafr1wY3p5LL44uNdp02JUeaT76ew XRoqVKdGCOXOBV6Kek+sA3Pn5l9Z+HW4fRCmQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QVZoRDFNB4bWnITonQXJ6Rnl8D20c3kpQd7MlbJgeSs=; b=MD15WtY8Nzo5MuAquHS+VadgWlvV3gz2aSxCyqRtaYRUQiOkDEpChjHsnKAXJDl2k6 EMp1xjabozcox8GS6DLuHVzklO0Mg0v2AKkqLWbXTLqs4V57vb/h+7/HQ9o9jk8KicuA gPxkB/e1KtmzmOeRjL3x9mynlOp+aEofPi//UZLRyYVB/AVC0CObDU+ifxxqOEeNp4Ac 8cjlmD4eARmBizlXPmHBF46orAlIPZd8nWTdSFddlI5py701ojP3jdB9Qt/Ar9kzliny BIZyTfpCdJa8AY1mCO6baby+kSpAjb7SWlBrjaxuqSVK85BCnl20wlvd4n67tSdkUdWN 7KhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVU3QVTxqLsgXH5p+dFWxs7I0GCDsxM3it0xig1MOICaXfOk86Z SbzxsD+VSRg5H0a01iGmf4L1AWO1iXHWt+HDUowxrzQdynE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLwbs6+U+LYVu+M0vQqt1mrHttU2Ye470XKiBpEBM0PsDubJTcDWR7ESnDGYKweuws4tGwoKrw5wzwz3kYlcE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:30d9:: with SMTP id b25mr21544629ejb.55.1563223925985; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6EB5A0D4-DC17-40A8-B144-DC28F81C576A@employees.org> <A6135702-2156-48F1-A5D3-5F5EAE1B12B3@cooperw.in> <e24cae63-1a9b-7160-73cc-77c29e479eed@comcast.net> <9447eb2b-fd9f-4fa7-8e07-0bc0ad118292@gmail.com> <560a8a2b-3ece-4db9-4bf8-f16acbdc27a4@comcast.net> <ac5eec46-85d9-835a-fc53-02bb97fd25ab@gmail.com> <3b5c74d6-e219-512d-1c02-c7c66ca2573e@eff.org> <52052311-c9ed-7bbb-7f7e-edc1b0119075@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <52052311-c9ed-7bbb-7f7e-edc1b0119075@network-heretics.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:51:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzyaftM0tkTAfN-5XNzv+yY1+y89o2s_VtzN41=Mt7mXfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d02860058dbe6ed5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QDq9db8sevCSTmybZYSSUTcmAkc>
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: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:52:11 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:50, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote: > On 7/15/19 12:32 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > > > To reinforce what Melinda's saying: I dedicate less time to IETF work > > than I otherwise would, specifically because of the hostile and alien > > nature of debate here. I have colleagues who feel the same way, and > > other colleagues who refrain entirely from participating at the IETF > > because of it. > > I believe you. But could you drill down a bit into (i.e. define more > precisely) "hostile" and/or "alien"? Because I suspect these words > mean different things to different people. > > Almost certainly the precise meaning taken differs, but the essential meaning here is that some IETFers choose to be blunt, and this drives others away. And make no mistake, this *is* a choice, and I've only ever seen long-time, "senior", IETFers defend that choice publicly. > I have seen many reasons why people might be reluctant to contribute > technical input to IETF. Among these are those that you mention, but > also (and perhaps more importantly) people who feel that it is "not > their place" (or to put it differently, it would be "impolite") to offer > an opinion that conflicts with the opinion of someone with apparently > higher status. I saw this a lot when I was on IESG - people who would > not say what they really thought (no matter how much I tried to > encourage them) apparently because they thought I might disagree with them. > > These are other forms of the same problem, and thus have the same solution - the best way to ensure that diverse opinions are given is to ensure that we are welcoming to diverse opinions. This means avoiding being blunt when we offer our opinions, as well as trying to tease out the useful opinion from the bluntness of others. To put it another way, we should be conservative in what we send, and liberal in what we accept from others. Just like that principle, it should not bar us from noting and rejecting bad input - but we shouldn't let that be the cause of a fatal error. I'm glad to see that you note in your example that the people were put off speaking up by their perception of you. I can't tell you what you did to give them that opinion - I've a thick enough skin, and I'm certainly guilty of being overly blunt at times myself, so I'm not the best judge of whether that was the issue. Nevertheless, I agree with your implication that how people "in power" behave can have unexpected and highly undesirable outcomes for the group. Also, I have sometimes found input from people who claimed to be > speaking up for others' right to speak, to itself have a chilling > effect on others' willingness to speak up. > There's an element of truth here, in as much as if the only people who feel comfortable speaking up are, shall we say, "people who enjoy bluntness" it has a natural selective effect on the make up of the group; if newcomers aren't comfortable speaking up themselves, we've already lost, and others speaking up on their behalf is probably doing as much harm as good. As yes, I appreciate the irony here. > I hope there's general agreement that people should be free to > contribute technical ideas and opinions without fear of reprisal. > What's the best way to encourage that? > Not to retaliate, even where some course correction might be required. Retaliation is, after all, escalation. In my opinion, the problem we saw that sparked much of this discussion was twofold: a) By describing the actions as stupid, this carried a (unwanted) implication that those carrying out the action were stupid. Only stupid people do stupid things, but even clever people can make serious errors. b) Rather than call out that choice of words but answer the essential points, the organisation chose instead to chastise the sender publicly and leave the points unanswered - unwittingly shutting down the discussion. Put another way, the sender's choice of words added nothing useful to the discussion, and in fact dissuaded some from offering their own opinions. The response to it had much the same effect. And of course, the response to that escalated further. And so on. > > > > It can certainly take a lot longer to write an email that expresses > > disagreement strongly but without attacking the recipients (or other > > parties). Often it takes multiple revisions. But it's worth all of us > > taking the time and making those revisions in order to make the IETF a > > sustainable venue. > > I certainly agree that personal attacks are inappropriate, and hope > others also feel that way. Yes - and I note that a public chastising can very easily be a personal attack of sorts, too. Dave.
- Tolerance Ole Troan
- Re: Tolerance Eliot Lear
- Re: Tolerance Alissa Cooper
- Re: Tolerance lloyd.wood
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- RE: Tolerance Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Doug Royer
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Tolerance Richard Barnes
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Doug Royer
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance John Levine
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Salz, Rich
- Re: Tolerance Ross Finlayson
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Nick Hilliard
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Carsten Bormann
- Re: Tolerance Ted Lemon
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance S Moonesamy
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Ted Lemon
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance ned+ietf
- Re: Tolerance John Levine
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tol… Brian E Carpenter
- lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Keith Moore
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Keith Moore
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Jared Mauch
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Matthew A. Miller
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Nico Williams
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Ross Finlayson
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Jared Mauch
- Re: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was:… Phillip Hallam-Baker