IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 3E378120275 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=iucHDxxl; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=plG13oX4
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 anB7LNnuT1Uz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E145512027A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.147.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x65BikjV021230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1562327099; x=1562413499; bh=G3X8d0U+4gBkZXyk+zZh05KW2s/BDVutoL+plwChRUg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=iucHDxxl6+vzUKCEE01rKXoCvuLUbB58Mzfalaxvf01ymrVqXuC5C4sy0IUx49MWr DxM26uUyvcqDLFoKVKVMAfgVO/XV4ukLwSqBt3Gqmzkz+Su4ybquSfNtKzCMroX1HN O6NOaMndnNWPBU+29kDDZS5tgCeWEPwLf4s4aCys=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1562327099; x=1562413499; i=@elandsys.com; bh=G3X8d0U+4gBkZXyk+zZh05KW2s/BDVutoL+plwChRUg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=plG13oX433EgG4yoIgCYXnUSVfg3DPQYvY2Z+pF/jTGl4SEFeMMFBrvROEglSgl0k k4HDCN+M6E+sctPHZizjf/IFRMDacth1lnUJBr2lykiZVr1kdiYJGA16VS5eyjjcvG GOoBtLx+AvbshkJp+IS9+3SAnGOoY7M+EHLreNqA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190705031401.1041d890@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 04:30:26 -0700
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Effective discourse in the IETF
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQ2RFZ-_MJYtPhS8Vq0kOKDEmBxR8wKCc2+BJ7uTwTtLw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <20190628232206.GC10013@kduck.mit.edu> <e7bf71c3-7842-8699-1f56-36ffa823da99@comcast.net> <20190701223914.GK13810@kduck.mit.edu> <bad99f11-0d66-4aba-72ef-b4b648470753@comcast.net> <34A581FE-BCFA-4FDD-A626-372E036BD79A@cooperw.in> <20190703125524.GB98598@verdi> <c24b3857-fa3e-46a9-f55b-dd160250f290@acm.org> <2807ff5a-7fd3-65cc-5574-ae05df6c622c@acm.org> <20190703141309.GX49950@hanna.meerval.net> <F86FDC5A-AF66-492E-A1FC-678486C26065@fugue.com> <20190703151443.GA49950@hanna.meerval.net> <CAL02cgQ2RFZ-_MJYtPhS8Vq0kOKDEmBxR8wKCc2+BJ7uTwTtLw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SEm828tkEG5czNpLfINovEEu-_o>
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, 05 Jul 2019 11:45:10 -0000

Hi Richard,
At 08:37 AM 03-07-2019, Richard Barnes wrote:
>I would also challenge the phrase 
>"self-censorship".  Adapting ones 
>communications for an audience is not 
>censorship, it's effective communications.  It 
>can require that we think a bit before we speak, 
>but that cost is offset by the benefit of a better functioning community.

One of the angles to "self-censorship" is that it 
is influenced by the attitude which is 
visible.  I'll try to illustrate it as follows: 
is it permissible for a participant to express 
his/her disagreement?  Is it permissible for the 
discussion which occurs after that to be confrontational?

Some persons would be reluctant to express an 
opinion in a venue which is perceived as 
hostile.  Do anyone wish to read that opinion or not?

This thread was triggered by a decision which was 
based on a RFC which was written 19 years 
ago.  The attitude at that time were probably 
different.  The problem is likely the same, i.e. 
figuring out what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email