Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 31/10/2021, at 11:31 AM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It's hard to escape the impression that some of those insisting on "professional behavior" are looking for a way to exclude those who they deem not qualified, so as to get out of the way of the Big Corporations who want IETF to do what they want it to do.

While I understand the allure of conspiracy theories, it is far more straightforward and far more accurate to assume that those insisting on "professional behaviour" are simply looking to exclude "unprofessional behaviour" wherever that is found, with no ulterior motive.

> Anyway, if "unprofessional behavior" is not defined, those in power can use any deviation from "normal" as an excuse to sanction participants.

And the same lack of definition allows those not in power to claim that they were not behaving unprofessionally and any sanctions against them were therefore an abuse of power.

FWIW I like the list you posted in an attempt to define professional, though I personally would add a lot more to it.

Jay
> 
> 
> But I also realize that maybe this doesn't matter much, as the scope of this document is limited to the IETF list which is of decreasing relevance anyway.   The IETF list used to serve as the primary forum of the community, its center, and also its conscience.   This draft along with several other IMO extremely harmful measures that have been taken in recent years (including the creation of gendispatch) narrows the scope of the IETF list so much that it effectively destroys most of the utility that the IETF list used to have, and with it the organization's core values.
> 
> I don't know why people think that the solution to traffic overload is to keep siloing discussions ad infinitum, and I would argue that one of IETF's core problems has long been the over-fragmentation of discussions.
> 
> Or maybe the fragmentation of the IETF list was part of a deliberate effort to subvert the IETF into being a forum that only serves the Internet industry, rather than one trying to serve the broader Internet community?
> 
>> 
>> The underlying value for some participants is most likely related to https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does <https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does> A participant residing in another country might not have the background information to understand those participants.  It takes many years to understand all that.
> 
> These rules don't really apply to discussions like the IETF list, even in the United States.   Governments within the US are forbidden from penalizing most kinds of speech.   But those restrictions on government don't prevent the moderation of discussions hosted by non-governmental organizations such as IETF, or for that matter discussions on social media sites.
> 
> But it may well be true that US citizens and longtime US residents, accustomed to having few government prohibitions on speech, are somewhat more outspoken than those from elsewhere.
> 
> Keith

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]