Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

On 7/3/19 6:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I can't immerse myself in this discussion for more than about 15 
> seconds without thinking about the many online communities I have seen 
> implode and dissolve in a pool of anger and recrimination.  A tendency 
> for rhetoric to become polemic and then spiral out of control seems an 
> unavoidable inbuilt feature of the medium.

I've been holding my "tongue" - as I've only ever been involved in IETF 
peripherally (mostly during my days, long ago, working on stuff at BBN, 
later when doing policy work).  But this is, after all a public list, 
and IETF is open to all to show up (Internet governance has long been my 
go-to example of how one might scale up town meeting style governance).

But I have to jump in and agree with this, strongly.  As someone who's 
on all too many lists, and hosts a bunch - it does seem like arguments 
over style, increasingly dominate discussions of substance, and all too 
often unpopular opinions are jumped on, in the name of "your tone may 
hurt someone's feelings" (less commonly, someone saying directly "you 
offended ME").  To the point that I've been considering that calls for 
censorship or banning - of topics, of terms, of people - is the only 
offense deserving of censorship or expulsion.

I'm also reminded of my days at BBN, where design review was viewed as a 
competitive sport (at least the ones I was party to - from both sides).  
It may not be "fun" having one's designs picked to shreds, with glee - 
but it sure benefited the ultimate work product, and was generally 
appreciated (if not completely "enjoyed") by the one presenting a design.

As a sometimes author, I'm also reminded that the good author welcomes 
brutal review, comment and editing (an editor who worries about 
offending an author by their edits is a worthless editor).

Might I suggest that, if not "brutality," then "vigorous" comment is 
something to be encouraged, not discouraged.  And that, when it comes to 
concerns about some people not speaking up because of being "attacked" - 
perhaps the response is to encourage people to develop thicker skins; 
IMHO, meekness is not a positive personality trait in technical work.  
After all, in theory, we're all competent, professional, adults here - 
criticism, even impolite & brutal criticism, adds value (assuming that 
it's substantive, not ad hominum or otherwise content-free).

> Therefore, I'm generally in favor of proactive attempts to throw water 
> on flames before the community is placed at risk.  If you think you 
> are a victim of "political correctness", please consider that the 
> people you're mad at probably think they're preserving community health.
>
I can't help but think that "be conservative in what you do, be liberal 
in what you accept from others" applies even more to online discussion 
than to protocol implementation.  Beyond that, can't we take the 
discussions about tone & style outside?

Respectfully (sort of),

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown