Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing

["Stan Kalisch" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 2:26 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 9/10/19 2:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote: 
>>>> Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of poisoning a debate by being disruptive is much more common.
>>> So is accusing well-intended people of bad intention.

>> This is an example of tone-policing as a form of agenda denial. Because Phil used the term “poisoning,” this gave Keith an opportunity to respond to what Phil had said as if it were an accusation, and not merely a factual observation. And so now we are talking about Phil attacking Keith, instead of talking about how to have good discussions in the IETF.
>> 
>> :(
> Because citing examples of harmful communication cannot possibly be relevant to a discussion of how to have good discussions.


Stripping this of its sarcasm, I think this is a salient point. Whatever side of the discussion you are on, the incredibly awkward, but essential de-facto datapoints for this discussion are examples of conduct of IETF participants.

Which may or may not create more datapoints, depending on your point of view, just by being discussed.

It seems to me that this is what is making this discussion so difficult.


Thanks,
Stan