IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: tone policing

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6525D1200DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wb1Fq_JnyNhb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18E91200DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A42721B0E; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:11:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=OHelQt mfeKAIj3l+2RWF84xnn+9zBkFohGpKqJjm/xc=; b=1t9EUFlS0lpFxu1+SC06A0 CDco1BCc2iVw3ay1IausBatRTJH955Swh2nSrUI9XwmTRZhPfu0tjwE7OGVFKi9L 4LPSfw3HTY1JF5FmPTkRffuCePB8MMvhp5+gicROd4Ws0gMxyUIrZk/0QFqrv5hf +Omsyr8CjPn+zGQ4Euweso56pbBh9SphKXYrlaGZa3XGtwEfCFN6708jZlnHeiuE 9pODCc8oHVw9TYo3UYLX9jRD8p2M/QvclaL+ShBho9anBt3mqrA6o/Lcl+uzJqpr 0u4tQvVzeS1r6nOavbzBloPbDQUuammbjSoEvG+VRT2G2H+sFBEbPFwzmhFv23sw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ta9tXZcylY3FK9sg0DN8gsLj5726URceABQdWzfivEFz4zUnRRyXfQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudejuddgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduhe enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgv thhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ta9tXbcpU4rf6nEDr1ST1Ac36ooWCJVVWs1aVJy9ycK7jS8_C8JGJw> <xmx:ta9tXdgZQoWYPO4a1yuntzgFPxV0xUxOvn_7b5KMZk1QvN7Znj-kNg> <xmx:ta9tXXQafFKj0ijmWHJ3w-3Uwrb-e5sWD8HX1v8CcqBj0YJPSozHXQ> <xmx:tq9tXTE-RQV4iGOZpjX3zfWs6qAZj5V8wn6PkmauB0uZlvnq5h68-Q>
Received: from [192.168.1.72] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CC65280066; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: tone policing
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <964a7d97-f146-4d2e-aa3e-d39fc08f6f76@Mikes-IPhone> <20190901195210.GA27269@kduck.mit.edu> <f4a03464-9c9d-9ee5-088a-586e2bb326b1@comcast.net> <4100d3fa-3bba-41dc-3df2-bf2d3dc0f667@network-heretics.com> <6abdd246-6ac0-7369-35b8-e299373eee64@gmail.com> <3a707945-2a88-66a1-f5c0-006fae1c77c6@network-heretics.com> <B21A8972-C958-4468-9C2E-73E1773B1C91@mnot.net> <a76b3022-d94e-32c1-97c5-45cfa347481d@network-heretics.com> <BC82596B-E402-41D4-AD22-474E98F2FE86@mnot.net>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <24dff788-b36c-bb3f-6cf0-39ee0ddac688@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:11:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BC82596B-E402-41D4-AD22-474E98F2FE86@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4699E7013B7F24163952724D"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hqJnXS8CwjEgbPSknTalKsctcxI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:11:36 -0000

On 9/2/19 8:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> OK. We seem to be thinking about different things, which means that specific examples might help. Saying that "anything goes" as far as how you communicate is OK by the IETF seems like an open invitation to unprofessional behaviour -- which*is*  bad behaviour.

No, "unprofessional behavior" is /not/ inherently bad behavior, for 
reasons already cited.   Too often, "professsional" is just another word 
that's used to justify abuse.

> Also, there's a difference between "ignore it" and "don't sanction it" -- and again a difference between social sanctions and official ones.

If pushback against people for their "tone" has a chilling effect on 
IETF contributions, I have a problem with it.   How can we make it 
acceptable in IETF to speak up against bad ideas if we demand that 
participants walk on eggshells?

All of this resorting to hopelessly vague standards says to me that we 
need to think harder about what kinds of behavior really are harmful to 
IETF, rather than insisting on standards that people can use to justify 
whatever prejudices they have.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email