Re: tone policing
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 03:02 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 AF9F81200B1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=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 EHBr00hqhbOz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FBB912001E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDBF20A0D; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:02:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:02:08 -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=fm3; bh=WGEAjvwc2uclTtlud7EPKTXDQjc/Ws6FmRh7hFlq4 aI=; b=v5YAxesg6H/Q/nzSYZ1t4CYBwew5YnutfuqxquNbZdYFS+SF/hHaeasps z5Kt5N9mSh4HvL0FyCwNi4R8J23hVl49tE0BkAkQ+SetyuEeQBn5vcfYMDHeUKLn oEh56XYZnq3Y0dgbRxi5wAT1E1i+8kvqx7iKi25ht7g8fSlwg8gh3Ce+ofdCDYoF 8Rs/pG+XBKXZN5d9Skvrub935ZP3dwbH0pX4gnLCTcyJOrFHlo8xK4DZfTFD7KEe 0s5C01UKPsSIGwFAITZ/MmJM0Q6IeKcqO43IKc3Xr19i0f86Z9J0I+anHogDWRT8 hxNaTIG/VG4SA0HkK4JRYvnrtf0Ug==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:sNdtXZ2NmBDiXODBenvko0WgRFSJRlWNxTWYS-DSJEWlMHz7QgEapQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudejuddgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhoohhglhgvrdgtoh hmnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhho mhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:sNdtXbPCXhcywqC0K8Aaw6X3y5HcRf2HLtXTKIhnBh5ukYD_ABbI8g> <xmx:sNdtXQRf91_-7okh5yGrRQDk72j3-O2QutGIM8m3pU_PvcQC6pRtzQ> <xmx:sNdtXRz9821tELJBd7ZY1ZbqrFi8fNU10M8d_bgJTzwMIMKc_fp7RA> <xmx:sNdtXcPqo4qHWtvWYoJco4YCUznWtO7n0RoiLmXF7YOK141S4Jwkjg>
Received: from [192.168.1.72] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 17D60D6005E; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:02:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: tone policing
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <964a7d97-f146-4d2e-aa3e-d39fc08f6f76@Mikes-IPhone> <20190901195210.GA27269@kduck.mit.edu> <f4a03464-9c9d-9ee5-088a-586e2bb326b1@comcast.net> <4100d3fa-3bba-41dc-3df2-bf2d3dc0f667@network-heretics.com> <6abdd246-6ac0-7369-35b8-e299373eee64@gmail.com> <3a707945-2a88-66a1-f5c0-006fae1c77c6@network-heretics.com> <B21A8972-C958-4468-9C2E-73E1773B1C91@mnot.net> <a76b3022-d94e-32c1-97c5-45cfa347481d@network-heretics.com> <BC82596B-E402-41D4-AD22-474E98F2FE86@mnot.net> <24dff788-b36c-bb3f-6cf0-39ee0ddac688@network-heretics.com> <E3F1AA5E-3D2E-40B0-8A16-44091AA9618D@mnot.net> <a0988541-45d3-198b-bdfb-6c31fe110183@network-heretics.com> <0d492a1b-c373-ccae-2274-3e5984c4caab@gmail.com> <198bf00d-efd4-513e-5d68-91f28d7f08dc@network-heretics.com> <dfec9bee-56ea-d560-8e54-3a23f47dc386@nostrum.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <dcef1579-23b8-eb2d-0587-dc56ce9ad27a@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:02:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dfec9bee-56ea-d560-8e54-3a23f47dc386@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TKxZC4_nUOqk1VuriAbaguhWIko>
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 03:02:12 -0000
On 9/2/19 10:25 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > On 9/2/19 8:55 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> Rather I think we need to try harder to understand those whose "tone" >> is harder to deal with, because quite often those people are the ones >> who have rare and valuable insight. > > There's an increasing recognition within the software development > industry that extremely smart people who are rough around the edges in > the way you describe ultimately cause more harm to an organization > than their contributions help. I think we're talking about very different kinds of people here, though of course it's hard to tell because "tone" is so vague. I've seen evidence of such increasing "recognition" too, at least in the form of articles on LinkedIn. One of the things that disturbs me about such article is that there is often a chorus of response that are somewhat of the form "yes, smart people really do get in the way, and we need to get rid of them". But there's a lot of difference between "smart people" and "people whose tone someone doesn't like" so I don't think it's appropriate to lump them in the same pile. But because it may be the case that some people are thinking of "smart people", as people who use inappropriate "tone", I would like to drill down a bit further: I don't think the issue is intelligence, mostly. I think the issue is whether someone can see things from multiple points of view and is capable of compromise. There are intelligent people are are good at those things. And there are intelligent people who simply cannot see things from any other point of view and for whom no compromise will ever be acceptable. So I think intelligence and ability to work toward compromise are orthogonal. There are some rather famous examples of the latter kind of person, who have made extremely valuable contributions to networking and/or computer science. But offhand I can't think of any who have been successful in a consensus-based standards organization. I suspect that an intelligent person who can see things from multiple points of view and is willing to work toward seeing how to build a compromise can still be successful in IETF - or at least could do well in the IETF of several years ago (not sure about today). On the other hand, someone who couldn't see the merits in other points of view and/or wasn't willing to compromise, probably wouldn't have ever felt successful or useful in IETF, and probably abandoned trying to work here fairly quickly. So in summary, I don't think IETF has had too many problems with the kind of intelligent person who can't compromise. But there is yet another phenomenon that is part of this picture, which is that some people are hostile to and prejudiced against people who are intelligent. And culturally speaking, at least in the US (can't speak for elsewhere), there has been a widespread backlash against intelligent people. This has certainly had a profound effect on US politics, at least. Looking at the spate of articles (such as those you cited) of the form "intelligent people bad", it's hard to not wonder if that's part of the same trend. In case it's not clear, I don't think that prejudice against intelligent people, or against people with different views (who might or might not be more intelligent than average) has any place in IETF, and I hope you're not suggesting that it does. Quite the contrary, IETF decision-making needs to be informed by a wide variety of views, and emphatically not (for example) just the views or large corporations that are trying to own a piece of the "market". IETF needs outliers (whether or not they're highly intelligent). > When you dig into the rationale, a lot of this thinking translates > directly to standards development. See > <https://www.google.com/search?q=toxic+rockstar+programmers> for a > nearly infinite number of articles that go into why these people need > -- for the sake of the organization -- to either learn to contribute > in a non-toxic fashion, or be shown the door. Again, we really need to drill down past vague words like "toxic". Quite honestly, I find your words in the subject message toxic, but I don't think your contributions should be censored for that reason. Keith
- New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Matthew A. Miller
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW commen… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael StJohns
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Melinda Shore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Leif Johansson
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- SAA Do's and Don'ts Michael StJohns
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Melinda Shore
- tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts John C Klensin
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Melinda Shore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Christer Holmberg
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing ned+ietf
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Patrik Fältström
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Doug Royer
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Joel M. Halpern
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Brian E Carpenter
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Leif Johansson
- Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Paul Wouters
- BIMI: Re: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Stan Kalisch
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Nico Williams
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael Richardson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Leif Johansson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period (off-topi… S Moonesamy
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Brian E Carpenter
- "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc-i] … Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc… John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- The IETF, Standards process, and the impact on th… Michael StJohns
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Leif Johansson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Randy Bush
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: "community" for the RFC series John C Klensin
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Randy Presuhn
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series S Moonesamy
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael Richardson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [IAB] "community" for the RFC series Colin Perkins
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter