ietf@ list as a proxy for community opinion (not)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 9/13/19 10:15 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

>>> [0] To the extent to which one believes -- mistakenly, IMO -- that
>>> traffic on the ietf@ list ought to be taken as a proxy for the views
>>> of the community.
>> ok.  i'll bite.  you have another suggestion that is not a closed space
>> with important people breathing each others' smoke?

I would never claim, for a very many reasons, that the ietf@ list is a 
representative sample of community views, and nobody should interpret it 
that way.

At the same time, as long as even outliers and those viewed as 
anti-social are able to post their opinions there, there's reason to 
have some confidence that a broad spectrum of views is represented, 
rather than say, just the views of the leaders or those allowed to 
decide which messages are suitable.

> This is something we're going to need to deal with at some point -
> some number of community participants have indicated that they do
> not subscribe to ietf@ because of the volume/tone/low signal-to-
> noise ratio.  Those are people who are part of the community and
> not participating here.  We have never made an explicit decision
> to discount the views of people who can't/won't tolerate this
> mailing list but it's effectively what we're doing, I think.

Of course, those aren't the only views being discounted.   The views of 
those who are uncomfortable with pushing back against authority (likely 
because of social conditioning that protects power structures whether or 
not they serve the good) are also being discounted.

I don't want to dismiss the problem you're citing.   But it seems to me 
that in such a large and diverse group there will inherently be some 
differences of opinion and conflict.  And so many people are 
"uncomfortable" with conflicting views, that avoiding discomfort is 
probably not an appropriate goal.   Indeed, at least for technical 
decisions, it seems that IETF's very job is to expose such conflicts and 
find ways to resolve them, work around them, and/or compromise, rather 
than sweep such conflicts under a rug in the name of comity.

So IETF absolutely needs people who will speak up when they're 
uncomfortable, even if their voices shake (literally or metaphorically), 
whatever the reason.   And part of the reason for people being 
uncomfortable when they speak up will inevitably be that they are 
frightened of violating social convention, "rocking the boat", dreading 
pushback from others.

> I don't know if that's the problem that EKR has in mind but I do
> think that it's one reason that the while the views expressed here
> are basically definitive, in terms of IETF process, they don't
> necessarily reflect the actual views of the community.  (Maybe
> someone is willing to argue that that the people who remove themselves
> are randomly distributed with respect to the community but I
> seriously hope not).

As said above, certainly not a representative sample.   That's part of 
why we make decisions by rough consensus rather than voting.

Keith