Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/3/19 11:14 AM, Job Snijders wrote:

>
>> [snip]
>>
>> So the question is, is it possible for us to do better?
> Yes, that is always the question. And I am cautiously optimistic, I
> believe IETF will not fade into obsolescence because IETF has a unique
> characteristic rarely is found in organisations: we have the ability to
> change our process, and we have even have a defined process to guide
> such process changes! Because we can change ourselves, change our
> culture, we can adapt to changing circumstances.
I believe that the changes you seem to advocate would render IETF 
irrelevant, so I hope they never happen.
>> Can we do what worked for us in the past, but differently enough that
>> we successfully include speakers who would be silenced by harsh public
>> criticism?
> Even if harsh public critisism has worked in the past, I don't think the
> approach aligns with our current trajectory where it appears we are now
> more mindful of inclusivity and acknowledge diversity.

I categorically disagree that "inclusivity" and "diversity" 
considerations require IETF participants to withhold criticism. Yes, 
some cultures and some individuals have been conditioned to believe that 
it's impolite to criticize and/or that criticism of one's ideas is 
tantamount to personal criticism.   We need to clearly establish that 
these conventions are NOT appropriate for IETF, or really, for any 
technical discussion.

We're dealing with the most complex systems that mankind have ever 
created.   We cannot afford to promote dishonesty in the guise of being 
"nice" or "politically correct".

>> Is there a way to practice Crocker’s rule that doesn’t discourage
>> participation?
> In public context, I don't believe that is possible.
I don't believe it's possible to be technically competent in this 
subject matter without adopting a discipline akin to Crocker's rule 
(though perhaps not quite in that extreme).
>
> On a positive note: I believe Marc's reference to Crocker's Rules was an
> attempt to express openness, a willingness to create space for other
> people to express themselves. Creating such space is a wonderful thing,
> but as we operate in public context we have to look for the smallest
> common denominator, however hard that may be.
"smallest common denominator" is a race to the bottom, it's promoting 
mediocrity as a virtue.   I emphatically disagree that it is.


Keith