Re: tone policing

[Doug Royer <[e-mail]>]

On 9/9/19 11:03 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ...
> The problem right now is that because there is no feedback loop, and because so much of what is said is useless, even if there are ten thousand subscribers to the IETF, I seriously doubt that even 0.01% of those people are actually following the discussions here carefully enough to get value out of them.  It’s just too much work.

More feedback, good and not, would be wonderful.

 From my personal observation, the chairs should be more active in collecting consensus once a specific topic settles down or drags on too long. When there are two or more different proposals, then currently someone (often not the chair) declares consensus. Did the others agree? Or did they give up because they have to go back something else? Or did the editor(s) just decide what consensus was based on their guess or because they decided which they wanted? When some strongly object, they are still free to write their own draft and proposals, and submit them.

I have seen feedback from people that had no plans to implement. Often those hypothetical situations complicated things, and helped nothing in the long run, because no one implemented those features. Or they were just 'great' ideas that no one wanted in their code. The WG chair needs to inquire and send out a WG list email and gather consensus on that idea, not other WG members. Now it is a free-for-all and confusing.

I think it would be a good thing when more positive feedback was given to actual specific proposals. Nay-saying can be great when something does not work at all or some detail was forgotten. But arguing a hypothetical point without a proposal is often not useful, when done more than once on a specific point. How to fix it is often what is needed.

As to 'tone', I have seen people insulted because you did not think their proposal was fantastic. So what is 'tone'?
I can respectively disagree, that requires them to respectively acknowledge or at least accept the input as serious and reply accordingly.

"That was already discussed" as a reply can be a rude comment that should be replaced with something like "See the WG mailing list for the topic 'xyz'". Or no reply.

"That was discussed at the face to face meeting", is an irrelevant reply, and can be seen as a reply to shut down valid (or not) proposals. As the WG mailing list decides, not done in face to face meetings.  After a face to face meeting, there should be a follow up to the WG list with a summary of what the named participants agreed to, and *asking* or hinting that is the way to go. Then accepting and seriously evaluating any WG list replies. And accepting that you may have to re-hash the details of the face to face meeting. Because they also have the right to understand. When they do not understand, the issue will keep coming up over and over. So just get it out and open up the details.

When a WG direction is chosen, the chair needs to submit an email declaring the choice for all to see and understand. When people object, they are still free to write and submit their own proposals in order to influence the WG. Then they need to accept that people can read, accept, reject, or ignore that other proposal.

Sending out a "it is obvious" or "we have decided", type of messages, need to come from the WG chair. Not random people on the list that may or may not be representing or understanding the WG consensus.

And most importantly, when the WG chair does nothing, they need to be replaced with someone that has the time and desire to participate in the collection and reporting of consensus.

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
[e-mail]
714-989-6135