RE: Thoughts about the IETF mailing list discussion

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 9:48 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Thoughts about the IETF mailing list discussion
> 
> Well, I'm back from a five-day 'voluntary posting ban' imposed by the Sergeant-
> At-Arms (SAA) on August 12th, under direction of the IETF Chair, after being
> accused of being 'part of an emerging pattern of abuse' including but,
> presumably, not limited to, my recent emails related to the IESG's
> announcement:
> 
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UbhPgqdDNjqnL2c4LZzjWR28Q9I/
> 
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OdoiOlnKrHfHSl5dW2NxjfcEh6w/
> 
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-dNDiTeN_PFep1YZQkmvZpt6Fn4/
> 
> 
> The SAA offered  me the option of posting its rebuke to me to the mailing list,
> having already quickly announced my ban a couple of times. I said yes to the
> option of them posting that rebuke text in full, but I haven't seen that posted.
> 
> 
> I see that after I was banned, Ohta-san in Tokyo and M. Kobeissi in Paris
> (France, not Texas) were also promptly banned, and M. Kobeissi's ban was later
> reversed because he kicked up a fuss, and well, bullies are cowards. I do find M.
> Kobeissi's minority-viewpoint arguments quite persuasive. I feel that I'm in
> good company. (I'll note that this trend to replace 'bad' terms is very much in
> vogue in the United States, and that the three people banned for pointing out
> problems with the idea are not in the United States. Interesting, that. I'm
> reasonably sure that list policing should be part of mailing list administration,
> akin to giving a council car parking ticket in a civilized society, and should not be
> at the behest of the IETF Chair's personal direction. IETF mailing lists are for
> focused debate on topics, not just for me-too +1 agreement that avoids censure
> by the Sergeants.)
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly, I have some specific and some more general thoughts on this..
> No great realizations, alas; more a collection of pointers to stuff I hadn't been
> tracking closely that indicate a trend I hadn't paid much attention to but you,
> dear reader, have probably noticed.
> 
> 
> The discouraging-bad-terminology draft discussion that kicked this off is very
> much a red herring testing the waters, and in my opinion is simply another play
> in pushing issues in terms of how speech is policed, how IETF mailing lists are
> run and how discussion is conducted, to be escalated slowly but ultimately to
> how the IETF itself is run and what goals are set for it. Change comes from
> within, an avalanche needs a first rock to fall, a journey starts with a single step,
> all that.
> 
> 
> The IETF is set up on mailing lists to do its work, and, in these days of COVID
> and forced distanced working, needs them more than ever. Mailing lists are
> where the bulk of IETF work is done, directions are decided, drafts are
> discussed, and many decisions are taken.
> 
> 
> Mailing-list etiquette is imo not difficult for an adult to master. Don't be an ass,
> argue the point, not the person, try to avoid ad hominem and bad rhetoric,
> make a point that is relevant and do try and write well; you're taking the
> attention of a lot of people, many who may disagree with you, some strongly.
> At least be polite (though expectations of what politeness entails and its
> customs do vary). If you're not, you'll get called on it. Be interesting, if you can.
> Being entertaining is a welcome, if rare, bonus.
> 
> 
> And yet, it seems that we have been Doing Mailing Lists Wrong All This Time..
> Not inclusive enough? Toxic? That's not my experience; I find IETF-Discuss to be
> nowhere near as toxic as many other places can be, Twitter included, and
> there's a widely shared view of what the list is about and is for. Written down,
> codified.
> 
> 
> I do find that automatic filtering of list mails into list mailboxes and threading of
> subjects provides useful distancing from topics and allows focusing my
> attention. I can come and go from IETF-Discuss or from various working group
> discussions without any undue emotional attachment, but then I'm not
> required to read or comment on everything. Or, because it's the IETF and I'm
> just a peon, anything. But that's just my experience.
> 
> 
> I was struck by something Alissa Cooper, the current IETF chair, had minuted in
> the GENDISPATCH meeting on 30 July:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/gendispatch/minutes
> 
> 
> * **Alissa Cooper** : really interesting discussion.  Interesting noting
>           dramatic difference in tone here vs tone on ietf@ietf.  Appreciate the
>           desire to want a forum for discussion.  An IETF mailing list seems a
>           really problematic way to talk about this subject.  Extremely painful
>           to read through, and that dynamic pushes people out of the discussion
>           who need to be there and are absent from it entirely in its current
>           form. It's almost like having meetings like this is a better way.
> 
> 
> Now, we've had IETF chairs who were criticized for paying too much attention
> to Cisco, and for not paying enough attention to Cisco (that was the same guy,
> at the same time). We've had chairs that had doubts about evolution or
> believed that all problems could be resolved by thinking about them on a cross-
> country ski trip. But as far as I know we've never before had a chair that didn't
> like reading IETF mailing lists because they were felt to be painful. The 'I can't
> read the mailing list now, because feelings' is now a trope that now seems to
> be recurring, even among people in senior roles. Emotions are not just being
> brought to the table, but are actually being expressed, with actual words.
> 
> 
> These emotional responses and just-can't-deal-with-it statements are odd for
> me to see, especially from people posting about drafts they're invested in -- and
> receiving feedback on their drafts that they don't like to read, then calling foul. I
> do wonder what mail filtering and threading, if any, they're using, and what
> distancing that affords them mentally.
> 
> 
> But mailing lists are how topics are debated in the IETF. One might wonder, if it
> can't be discussed on any mailing list, perhaps it is not a topic for the IETF or
> IETF contributors? Is an absent IETF contributor who doesn't contribute to
> mailing lists still a contributor? This is the kind of philosophy Wittgenstein's
> Tractatus 7 gets into.
> 
> 
> Is someone who doesn't want to be there not there simply because they just
> don't want to be there? Or because they're not interested? Or feel oppressed?
> By a mailing list? Surely only the putative contributor can decide if they need to
> be there? And if they really need to be there, they'll be there? Despite the pain
> of reading the mailing list? Can they work through the pain of the mailing list
> and of having to listen to other people whose opinions are as valid as theirs
> are? And can they set up a separate mailbox for it? Is their presence on the list
> felt by their very absence? Does the list discussion call out for them? Is reading
> disagreement that painful? Do they feel as oppressed by reading journalism? Is
> hell other people, and their loud opinions?  Thanks, Sartre. Not easy questions
> to answer.
> 
> 
> But if it's a matter of tone: the problem is apparently really Loud Men Talking
> Loudly on this list, which is what men are wont to do, and which is indeed
> exactly what I am doing right now.One can be loud, but also quite self-aware.
> And this male behaviour has, of course, already been called out As Wrong. Even
> though I'm engaging with the list and the subject matter.
> 
> 
> https://hackcur.io/whats-wrong-with-loud-men-talking-loudly-the-ietfs-culture-
> wars/
> 
> (via the Oxford Internet Institute, which awarded Cooper's doctorate. It really is
> a small world. But there's a good simple rejoinder to much of that world:
> https://twitter.com/Nathabeer/status/1294353253463928835
> 
> "To be frank, one of the worst encounters I experienced in the IETF was with
> some women. I didn't experience sexism but bullying by other women because
> I didn't feel the need to join a women-only group.")
> 
> 
> It's interesting how this sort of material moves quickly from anthropological
> analysis to prescriptive action. It's very much like 'Boys: They won't do what
> they are told and get distracted in class' or 'Men and Sportsball: What can we
> do about it?'
> 
> 
> Well, we can always make Sportsball more inclusive. Remove violent tackles
> from rugby, change the rules, give everyone a ball. But at some point, it ceases
> to lose its activity and purpose, just as eventually, reasoned debate that is too
> watered down ceases to be useful debate; it degenerates into a series of
> unending "+1"s.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play sportsball to progress the state of the art, you
> shouldn't have to. Deliberately working to include people who really don't like
> sportsball and who stand on the sidelines saying that it's played all wrong, or
> try to play to their own rules and promptly take their ball home, is simply too
> difficult. (Those sidelines are Twitter commentary, these days. Many Twitter
> involved - ahem, IETF tweeps - remain _completely appalled_ by this mailing
> list. But I should also say that vast chunks of Twitter do remain completely
> devoted to Sportsball, showing that sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.)
> 
> 
> I note that the IETF Chair is also the Area Director for GENDISPATCH (I would
> have thought that either in itself would be a fulltime role, as is staying woke),
> and that the GENDISPATCH terminology draft was written by Mallory Knodel,
> who, just as Cooper was, is at the Center for Democracy and Technology. That's
> a primarily-US lobbying organisation, pleased to be disrupting the IETF:
> 
> 
> https://cdt.org/insights/pushing-internet-standards-governing-body-ietf-to-
> tackle-discriminatory-and-exclusionary-terminology/
> 
> 
> You'd think a Center for Democracy and Technology would be more interested
> in spending time on the upcoming US election, on say, the democratic
> technology of voting machines and ensuring that a federal republic with mass
> disenfranchisement and a skewed voting college at least pretends to resemble
> a democracy to some degree, but here we are. Promoting US-style democracy
> is laudable, but fixing it is not. Anyway, probably too late for that. Pick the
> battles that you might win, in line with larger goals.
> 
> 
> Knodel's also running the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Consideration group,
> which had a feminist take on how the IETF should be:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-guerra-feminism-01.txt
> 
> https://www.apc.org/en/blog/can-we-make-internet-standards-feminist-
> discussion-internet-freedom-festival
> 
> 
> Certainly new territory to be explored; I've certainly never given
> intersectionality its due when designing protocols or state machines.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, beyond the IETF-discuss mailing list, this seems to be a growing
> trend in approaching IETF governance, and who gets to choose how things are
> run. Or, at least, an opening volleys of sorts in beginning that effort. It's less
> technical but far more political, and this particular politics has some external,
> well-funded, lobbyists.
> 
> 
> The problem with discussing politics is that separating the person from the
> political viewpoint held is often far harder to do cleanly, and motives and
> purpose come into it more. It's more difficult to not go ad-hominem. Still, most
> IETF participants have external funding of some sort, and everyone has a
> viewpoint. But one rather wishes that the lobbying and politicking to set the
> direction of governance was a bit more transparent in stating its larger goals.
> 
> 
> Speaking of governance, separation of powers is commonplace in democracies:
> the _trias politica_ of legislature; executive; and judiciary, though that and the
> rule of law are often under attack.
> 
> 
> In the IETF, we have approximations in the IAB, the IESG, and the RFC-Editor,
> though we've been without a proper RFC-Editor for well over a year. Publishing
> judgement and technical gatekeeping has been weakened administratively over
> the years, if you like. It can be argued that the power of the RFC Editor has been
> considerably diminished since the glory days of Postel, and that remediating
> steps have not been enough. Discussions about language and discussions just
> distract from that. Rule of law? That's now who the Chair sets the SAA on. I
> sense a lack of balance in the force. But here I am, discussing the seemingly
> smaller issue tone on mailing lists.
> 
> 
> Aspects of this problem are very much sourced from the American culture still
> dominant in the IETF. That prompts a fictive analogy also taken from American
> culture; George Lucas intended Star Wars to be commentary on the United
> States and its governance, shining city on a hill and all.
> 
> 
> The Jedi, smug annoying superior mostly-male know-it-all jerks that they are,
> are completely surprised and upended by someone in a position of power, who
> starts a minor dispute as a pretext, then relies on a younger apprentice to spur
> growing conflict and eventually completely destroys the systems of governance,
> sweeping away the existing power structure and value system  to install a new
> one of people who think alike, but are programmed to think differently. But
> that canon was brought into being by an entire movie where there is only one
> significant woman in leadership, who is permanently annoyed by the actions of
> al the white men around her and their ongoing maleness. There are lessons in
> combining those. (Oh, spoiler alerts. sorry..)
> 
> 
> Welcome to the Culture Wars. I have a bad feeling about this.  May the RFC
> Editor be with you.
> 
> 
> L.
> 
> 
> If you need me, I'll be in an Australian desert, under a single blazing sun..
> 
> 
> Lloyd Wood [e-mail] http://about.me/lloydwood

--
https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org