Re: Tolerance

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 15, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:50, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 7/15/19 12:32 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
>> 
>> > To reinforce what Melinda's saying: I dedicate less time to IETF work 
>> > than I otherwise would, specifically because of the hostile and alien 
>> > nature of debate here. I have colleagues who feel the same way, and 
>> > other colleagues who refrain entirely from participating at the IETF 
>> > because of it.
>> 
>> I believe you.   But could you drill down a bit into (i.e. define more 
>> precisely) "hostile" and/or "alien"?   Because I suspect these words 
>> mean different things to different people.
>> 
> 
> Almost certainly the precise meaning taken differs, but the essential meaning here is that some IETFers choose to be blunt, and this drives others away.

Could you be more precise about what it means to be “blunt”?  Because I’m not sure that I know what you mean. I can think of several possible alternatives:

- let’s say (for the sake of example) that my informed technical opinion is that NATs pose a grave threat to the security and stability of the internet and to the internet’s ability to support diverse applications. [*]  Is it too “blunt” of me to say so?  Or am I obligated to pretend, for the sake of “politeness” that NATs are somehow more virtuous than that, because others believe that they are?  In other words, do I have an obligation to be dishonest for the sake of protecting others’ egos or their employers’ products?

[*] note: this is just an example; my current position on NATs is more layered and nuanced than that.

- or am I supposed to treat every technical proposal or decision as if it’s a good one, and refrain from pointing out flaws, or refrain from attempting to express just how harmful a proposal or decision appears to me to be?  If I think that launching the spacecraft in below-freezing weather will significantly risk killing the crew, or that a proposed bridge design is likely to fail in a heavy wind, with potential loss of life, am I expected to say that in veiled terms like “I recommend against that”?

- or am I supposed to avoid technical discussion of details of a proposal or decision that might embarrass the person making the proposal or decision?

> 
> And make no mistake, this *is* a choice, and I've only ever seen long-time, "senior", IETFers defend that choice publicly.

It may be that very experienced and competent engineers are more likely to understand the value in it.  IETF was blessed to attract a lot of extremely competent people in its early days.  

>  
>> I have seen many reasons why people might be reluctant to contribute 
>> technical input to IETF.   Among these are those that you mention, but 
>> also (and perhaps more importantly) people who feel that it is "not 
>> their place" (or to put it differently, it would be "impolite") to offer 
>> an opinion that conflicts with the opinion of someone with apparently 
>> higher status.   I saw this a lot when I was on IESG - people who would 
>> not say what they really thought (no matter how much I tried to 
>> encourage them) apparently because they thought I might disagree with them.
>> 
> 
> These are other forms of the same problem, and thus have the same solution - the best way to ensure that diverse opinions are given is to ensure that we are welcoming to diverse opinions.

Agree with this much.

> 
> This means avoiding being blunt when we offer our opinions, as well as trying to tease out the useful opinion from the bluntness of others.

I disagree with that generality.  I don’t think it’s welcoming to people to not take them seriously.  One way to not take someone seriously is to humor them when they make bad suggestions and act as if they were good ones.  That’s not to say that I think they should have to endure scathing criticism of their ideas (and certainly not of themselves).  But sometimes it is necessary to be clear.   

> 
> To put it another way, we should be conservative in what we send, and liberal in what we accept from others. Just like that principle, it should not bar us from noting and rejecting bad input - but we shouldn't let that be the cause of a fatal error.

I had started to cite that principle myself but found too many cases for which it produced bad results.  At least we agree that we should be able to reject “bad input”.


> 
> I'm glad to see that you note in your example that the people were put off speaking up by their perception of you.

I’m not sure it was their perception of me personally that deterred them- it could have easily been either (IMO) a harmful form of “politeness” (don’t question someone of higher status) and/or a judgment that disagreeing with someone on IESG (ie someone in a position of power) would invite retaliation from that person.  After all, in a corporate world these are often the norm (or so I’m told).  I regard both ideas as harmful to the practice of engineering no matter what the environment.  (And potentially abusive, if enforced in a work environment.)


> 
>> Also, I have sometimes found input from people who claimed to be 
>> speaking up for others' right to speak, to itself  have a chilling 
>> effect on others' willingness to speak up.
>  
> There's an element of truth here, in as much as if the only people who feel comfortable speaking up are, shall we say, "people who enjoy bluntness" it has a natural selective effect on the make up of the group; if newcomers aren't comfortable speaking up themselves, we've already lost, and others speaking up on their behalf is probably doing as much harm as good.
> 
> As yes, I appreciate the irony here.
>  
>> I hope there's general agreement that people should be free to 
>> contribute technical ideas and opinions without fear of reprisal.   
>> What's the best way to encourage that?
> 
> Not to retaliate, even where some course correction might be required. Retaliation is, after all, escalation.
> 
> In my opinion, the problem we saw that sparked much of this discussion was twofold:
> 
> a) By describing the actions as stupid, this carried a (unwanted) implication that those carrying out the action were stupid. Only stupid people do stupid things, but even clever people can make serious errors.
> 

Disagree.  I don’t consider myself stupid, but I’ve done a lot of stupid things and I don’t mind saying so.  I also generally find it extremely harmful when people take it on themselves to police others’ language.  By all means let’s avoid and discourage direct personal insults of all kinds, but at the same time let’s not be eager to find fault with others’ choice of words.  

Sometimes “stupid” really does seem like the best word to describe an automaton.  I’d be okay with forbidding it if we found or coined a suitable replacement.   But we might be searching a while to develop an adequate vocabulary for the spectrum of things we need to express that won’t offend anybody. 

> b) Rather than call out that choice of words but answer the essential points, the organisation chose instead to chastise the sender publicly and leave the points unanswered - unwittingly shutting down the discussion.

Different people will have different opinions, and I don’t want to add fuel to that particular fire, but my analysis of that conversation was somewhat different.

> 
>  
>> >
>> > It can certainly take a lot longer to write an email that expresses 
>> > disagreement strongly but without attacking the recipients (or other 
>> > parties). Often it takes multiple revisions. But it's worth all of us 
>> > taking the time and making those revisions in order to make the IETF a 
>> > sustainable venue.
>> 
>> I certainly agree that personal attacks are inappropriate, and hope 
>> others also feel that way.
> 
> Yes - and I note that a public chastising can very easily be a personal attack of sorts, too.

Often is.

Keith