Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

> Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive, whatever the intent.

I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that concept of 
"offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's appropriate, because 
quite often I find that people have strong adverse reactions to things 
that need to be discussed, but they can't get past their reactions to 
see them.

> FWIW, I found the "Les White" drafts pretty offensive, and unprofessional, even if I could discern a satirical aspect.

I wish we'd stop using the word "unprofessional" because it's such an 
ambiguous word.  I've heard people accused of being "unprofessional" 
because they wore a hairstyle that made sense for the kind of hair their 
bodies grow; I've heard people called "unprofessional" because they 
dressed in clothes from their own cultures (even though there was no 
prescribed dress code).   I've heard people accused of being 
"unprofessional" because they respectfully expressed technical 
disagreements with their bosses. I've heard people described as 
unprofessional because they weren't herd creatures - they had different 
ideas than those of their colleagues.   So I've come to think of 
"professional" as just another kind of arbitrary prejudice that we'd be 
better without, an excuse to harass people who think differently.

So I wish we'd stop trying to make IETF "professional" (at least in 
those senses) - I think it impairs our ability to understand this hugely 
complex system that we've created, impairs our ability to function as 
responsible engineers.

But if we're going to use the word, we need to define what it means for 
IETF.   For IETF, professional should mean things like treating our 
fellow participants with respect, but NOT expecting people to accept 
ideas and proposals without question. Professional for IETF should mean 
making a genuine effort to contribute to consensus if at all possible, 
but without expecting people to buy into whatever proposal the "right" 
people are supporting.   It should mean letting leaders do their jobs in 
managing process, but also being able to question their actions, and 
treating them like peers in technical discussions. Professionalism in 
IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean acting like people are expected to act 
in corporate environments.

Professionalism in IETF absolutely SHOULD NOT mean never making people 
uncomfortable.  Willingness to be uncomfortable is a necessary condition 
to do this work.   This is not because people should try to make others 
uncomfortable for no good reason, but because/trying to wrap your head 
around someone else's mindset to see why you might disagree and how 
perhaps to craft a compromise is inherently uncomfortable./

I remember the first IETF meeting I attended, in St. Louis circa 1990.   
I was a starving graduate student who showed up because friends 
encouraged me to go and paid for my expenses.   I got to the hotel where 
the conference was being held and realized that I hadn't even thought 
about what to wear - I was wearing the t-shirt and shorts that I 
normally wore around campus.   I wandered through the hotel looking  for 
where the conference might be and discovered a large group mostly 
wearing t-shirts and shorts, and realized I was in the right place (in 
more ways than one).

IETF has always shunned the trappings of professionalism, much to its 
benefit.   It's survival as an effective organization depends on this.

Keith