Re: Social Science and the IETF

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

I agree with you totally. Your draft and Adrian/Pete draft are important to
stop attack behavior and the misuse if IETF facilities into wrong
activities. I feel mostly I am ignored or attacked, but I continuing to
think every day I am a new person and others are new persons (but IETF
cannot be that way, it needs new drafts and updates to its RFC policies to
become new) so that IETF can progress.

Social science input is needed (I requested that before this
subject-posted in my input after reviewing anti-harassment draft in message
1 below) as well to help IETF people understand that such drafts have
background support from science and social organisations.

AB

1.  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86218.html


On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 3/8/2014 9:50 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>> I am concerned that in the recent IETF discussion of interpersonal
>> dynamics, insufficient consideration has been given to the innate
>> personal characteristics of individuals that participate in the
>> IETF process.
>>
>> Using the Myers-Briggs characterization
>>
> ...
>
>> In the recent discussions that have taken place in the IETF on matters
>> related to social interaction, I have developed concerns that the
>> IETF is at risk of taking decisions outside its core competence.
>> In matters of organizational design and the creation of rules
>> that relate to interpersonal interaction, the IETF should, in my
>> view, be seeking wider professional input from those qualified
>> in the social and organizational sciences.
>>
>
>
>
> Stuart,
>
> Forgive me, but what discussions are you referring to?
>
> The ones that I am aware of covered harassment and bullying, with some
> later discussions considering the professionalism of how one voices
> personal frustrations with another participant.
>
> None of these is a matter of mismatched personality types, whether
> formulated by M-B or any of the vast array of competing personality and
> interaction theories.
>
> Harassment and bullying are forms of intimidation seeking to marginalize a
> participant.  They are not "interaction" problems; they are attacks.
>
> Some are frontal, attempting the verbal equivalent of blunt force trauma.
>  Others try to be more clever and subtle, such as when the attacker
> pretends to be a victim, or the attacker questions the victim's motives.
>  Whatever the form, they seek to undermine the person, rather than deal
> with technical substance.
>
> The draft I wrote goes into these in some details, including citing a
> array of professional papers:
>
>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/
>
> Further, my understanding is that the Anti-Harassment Policy formulated by
> the IESG and the more recent draft by Adrian and Pete all have had
> professional input.
>
> Please take the 12 minutes needed to look at the cited video. It includes
> some discussion of the difference between "communication" problems and
> bullying:
>
>      Workplace Bullying
>      Workplace Bullying <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgg32weT80>,
>
>
> Since your note made no specific references, perhaps you have some other
> conversations in mind?  Please do be specific.
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
>