What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: New-comers)
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 18 April 2021 01:46 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 A09AB3A3BCF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 HC1tMoU3-eae for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE7D73A3BCD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C5F5C00DE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:46:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=NPJInQitGLyDxYl6DiM+1vDPqmmXMq70CGr/OKjDK J4=; b=vFIfwNpl9QG/yCH8NH3bJLuSyYLRvBBnQq2nCxuWQEezcmOdHlrFKb3Q8 qAjeAjpNfCsGnLYpvxKXSoZnyZysFghXpnPyyUfZafsUNDhSDOsQ6ozOkFjIYOyX XSsreXbQHh0bO5PPPQ8IxRG0s9VQf3s8pQ+NBhMTkW7ffDxV3Mef/VotNhWnwGA4 pEMCioYSm5ufla45NzMHLDoBvdvjHUHmrqJW4kfCJFh4/nYvBCgEwYjl2e421cYu hrFaw9q1dbSLZ9VKK8iJrYvgWJrU/IuvMhmHZ6o1LDtn877jMcb0at+5M1BkMYhu Z9hCsC+VqpH/FjWywut7BSQgEHSAQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:bY97YCDPvT79ImsyERvkP_O4mUKV_aI7K9kaCzQjdWEOjsCOCMN49g> <xme:bY97YMgMXjjFthLlIfDmq-MlgksbQP8iUCqqk4U98zAGzjRHzK4mmE54MFrJB7YUS wfX2eKqgVsmdg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeljedggeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhuffvfhfkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehkeetudetgf effeehffeihfefffeiieduheffteelvddugeetudefieehgfegueenucfkphepvdefrddu vdegrddutddrudejtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bY97YFl5R6_ybpBbGsUAv_jx6sD7SEkcIrduWz0IAsNyeDNJjyy3iA> <xmx:bY97YAwNZClc7CJQTKVtzr8fwhlyT3HXkHuRYabFHCT-_9VOUmBFEg> <xmx:bY97YHQapi5xg5f6LyRAqqOffr4X-8m9dV64XOA_ZRGAAtj7VRQNnQ> <xmx:bo97YJD8uL03oKz7JINNDXeNXcDd2uM-Ur3Nf2JPdXB1IQL9Lnvaeg>
Received: from [192.168.1.69] (23-124-10-170.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [23.124.10.170]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 82E10240057 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:46:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: New-comers)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAHw9_iKcacK-gsmL9P_yBuyeGYnB44j1=TxF=VnG3Uu65JKJcQ@mail.gmail.com> <10C5497B-FCC3-45BE-B6A7-EE3A1C1D6883@akamai.com> <f02a58f3-ff79-3f3f-fc31-7aa17f7d14aa@mtcc.com> <698cf4f7-de67-8efb-a944-b29da42dca31@network-heretics.com> <dc7ff33f-a007-7afe-7d1b-92a242b7c799@mtcc.com> <aaebce66-6318-dc16-b8b0-5a7d7e3361a3@network-heretics.com> <6f709190-7f44-906b-a36b-90a8a4d73153@mtcc.com> <1b9fd5ac-5ef6-0114-4a2e-96e7a53aa665@network-heretics.com> <cec30d23-6d88-9de9-c606-b6cc2bbeb922@mtcc.com> <3fa5b354-c11c-9051-8416-46859f10cce6@network-heretics.com> <20210416031704.gu46kq46fmp6a3yh@crankycanuck.ca> <6AABB43E-FB70-4FDE-AA59-3D2AE25F4B64@me.com> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB>
Message-ID: <cdaf3837-05f5-a260-d99c-6858eb087d28@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:46:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S4SxmcirVtxYl-dqIWkg7Ds-ASc>
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: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 01:46:30 -0000
On 4/16/21 11:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > But Randy's other point is, IMO, important too. Suppose we > could adopt a rule that forbade snarling at people until after > they had participated in the IETF for a few years and magically > changed the culture so that everyone observed it, at the same > time declaring open season on people with longer participation > records or at least a couple of RFCs behind them. Whether > because of what Randy describes as having a shred of empathy or > because of the sense that they are likely to be treated > obnoxiously and aggressively about the time they were ready to > make significant contributions, people would still go away after > watching others be mistreated, abused, or dismissed. > > It really is time we clean up our acts. While I do think that we could possibly "clean up our acts" somewhat, I suspect that we will always need some way of pushing back on Bad Ideas and maybe even pushing back on participants who persistently promote Bad Ideas. And that, to a newcomer, such pushing back will be seen as "snarling" or perhaps even worse, no matter how politely the pushing back is done. We can't have an open discussion, one in which anyone is free to speak, without having Bad Ideas contributed. Nor can we have an open discussion without the possibility of genuine conflict between legitimate interests (leaving aside the question of what is "legitimate"), and also the possibility of misunderstanding. So there will always be a need for some form of pushback either against bad ideas or as part of the path toward consensus and/or compromise. I suspect that such pushback will always be considered rude by newcomers, people who lack the context to understand the nature of the conflict, no matter what form it takes: Whether it's a terse "-1" message, or a longer polite phrase like "I do not believe that this idea is viable", or if Bad Ideas and their contributors are widely ignored (but others may still reply thus amplifying the Bad Idea), or if we continue to let people express such pushback in their own words. Any of us who has been around for very long has seen tremendous amounts of expensive time [*] has been wasted trying to deal with Bad Ideas - ideas that have repeatedly been considered and rejected in the past, ideas that are hopelessly naive or uninformed by reality, ideas for which the hazards are obvious to experienced participants but perhaps not to every participant. ([*] Especially time in f2f meetings which can easily represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in meeting and travel expense on the part of participants or their sponsors, and also wasting the time of extremely talented and knowledgeable people who were hoping to get useful work done.) *** And sometimes, it should be admitted, the "Bad Ideas" aren't inherently Bad, but are being rejected for other reasons. Maybe an idea sounds too much like an idea that has been rejected as Bad, and the difference is too subtle for people to notice. Maybe the community is simply not ready to consider the idea. Maybe some people do not like the person proposing the idea, and wishes to discourage that person. Or maybe those people are so prejudiced against that person that they can't let themselves evaluate the idea on its merits. Maybe the idea has potential, but threatens the interests of too many influential participants. Or maybe an idea which was formerly rejected as Bad has been improved, but people once got so tired of discussing it that they're not willing to invest the effort (and fight the cognitive dissonance) required to fairly consider it again. Conditions do change over time, and ideas once considered unworkable may become more acceptable and/or feasible as a result. I remember when the general belief was that the web was too large to be effectively indexed by a search engine because CPUs and link speeds were too slow. I remember when it was considered infeasible to deploy a new transport protocol because of all of the different platforms that would have to change - there are fewer widely-used platforms now. I remember when the idea of provider-independent IPv6 addresses for non-providers was heresy. And sometimes an idea is inherently Bad, and no amount of persistence or effort will fix it. But I also realize that sometimes the pushback against an idea is really not that important. Sometimes it might be displaced discomfort about something else. Sometimes we argue over trivial ideas and expressions that aren't likely to have any significant effect. Maybe if we only had rude-seeming arguments about the ideas that seem to be really important, the overall perceived level of rudeness would go down. But there will still be some ideas that are important enough that candor is more important than playing nice. *** Every open discussion forum needs a way to push back on Bad Ideas. And every discussion forum (that wishes to be technically honest) needs a way to reconsider formerly rejected ideas. How we do each of these is hugely important. Either we waste immense amounts of time endlessly discussing Bad Ideas, or we find a way to push back on them. And either we find a way to reconsider formerly rejected ideas, or we paint ourselves into corners of technical irrelevance. Perhaps we can define a better way of giving pushback than snarling. But I'm pretty sure that we could also do worse than letting people express their dislike for ideas in their own words. I'd be especially wary of defining some standard "polite" way of rejecting Bad Ideas that doesn't let people express themselves. We need some flexibility in how we give pushback, so that some people can open up doors at least a little bit, even if other people want to slam them shut. Maybe it would help to have some concrete suggestions for non-snarling ways of pushing back on Bad Ideas. As in "if you can't find better language to use, try one of these boilerplate alternatives". Keith p.s. I've definitely been the target of "snarling" and worse, including overt personal attacks. Unpleasant though it was, I tried to just accept it as a sign that the community wasn't ready to consider the idea at that time. I do think we can and should treat one another better than that. But even if we choose better ways of pushing back, I'm not sure how obvious the difference will be to newcomers, who may still think we're being rude.
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… John Levine
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Eliot Lear
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Jim Fenton
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… John Levine
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Christian Huitema
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Livingood, Jason
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Dan Harkins
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Colin Perkins
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… tom petch
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… John R Levine
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- motivation to "join" IETF (was: the old fellowshi… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Leif Johansson
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Warren Kumari
- RE: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael McBride
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Wes Hardaker
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… scott
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship program) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian Carpenter
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… S Moonesamy
- Re: motivation to "join" IETF (was: the old fello… Lars Eggert
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… tom petch
- RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Warren Kumari
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Mary B
- RE: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… S Moonesamy
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- RE: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Larry Masinter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- RE: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Larry Masinter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Richardson
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: New-c… Keith Moore
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… Keith Moore
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Dave Cridland
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Christian Huitema
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Salz, Rich
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Clint Chaplin
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Salz, Rich
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Randy Presuhn
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Randy Presuhn
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Richard Shockey
- adapting IETF in light of github and similar tool… Keith Moore
- RE: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Larry Masinter
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Richard Shockey
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Lloyd W
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Dave Cridland
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Lloyd W
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Keith Moore
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … John Levine
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Salz, Rich
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Nick Hilliard
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Keith Moore
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Eliot Lear
- RE: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Larry Masinter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Fred Baker
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Jay Daley
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Jay Daley
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Lloyd W
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Jay Daley
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Nick Hilliard