Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Re-adding the list.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:53 Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 21:01 Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone else wrote:
>>     >>> If a speaker withholds useful input because he/she perceives it
>> would be
>>     >>> impolite, or taken as impolite, that impedes IETF's goals.
>>
>>     >>> If people suppress useful input because they perceive it as
>> impolite,
>>     >>> that also impedes IETF's goals.
>>     >>
>>     >>> If an audience discredits useful input because he/she perceives
>> it as
>>     >>> impolite, that also impedes IETF's goals.
>>     >>> Have you seen evidence of that happening?  I haven't.
>>
>> Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     > Yes, I've seen numerous examples of each of the above.
>>
>> I claim it happens every time we sit through 47 slides of 9pt text crammed
>> into a 5 minute slot.   The chair failed to communicate with the
>> presenter,
>> often because they were being too polite.
>
>
> This nicely highlights a misunderstanding that’s showing up here.  Keith,
> for example, has mentioned several times the idea of arguments not being
> raised because they would be perceived as impolite.  Similar to your
> scenario here.
>
> That is not at all the meaning of politeness that I (or I think Melinda)
> have in mind.  That, I agree, is unhelpful self-censorship that we
> shouldn’t encourage.
>
> It is possible, though, to tell someone politely and empathetically that
> they won’t be allowed to present that deck.  That their protocol is
> unworkable.  It’s not always easy, but it’s doable, and it merits the
> effort.
>
> I’m not saying anyone should say anything different substantively, I’m
> saying we shouldn’t tolerate people being unkind to each other.
>
>
> —Richard
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>