Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 21:56 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 9284D12022A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:56:37 -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 iExFlGhE3LlV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 261E1120074 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BBE21340; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:56:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:56:34 -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=AULGJz pPPP627sTCSZjNJ098vaBR0AlmK/+/I1NJGds=; b=DhOTKfrVaYbaBPkUb6JjQL yLYbmE+E9cRdbXXVqCn72gyGvDaQM4mZ4wH/fvQ4Swg6Szl733f6VmnrHf2np2dN ADJYy+7Ogi4ehBLQwGkagrhmPPbAivuqwjG6sdEQ/9Po+ipQ0wV0GIdxQM6WI26e HDQxj7rUC6ugQyWdqZouHXmr4Fu3PvA+ga0APWBD6JsB9CLAqe6rRbDd8Y8K+wA0 htFTFvtPpvWBW2MbEQGmGMgChzogmiGPnSap8Gxdj9/+cTHThVsIycsI3Zt6kvHj WDaJ85e6FE4Jm3QSyHnEJffxfaeLMSb6m/WXkLf7YbxlBHZvy7dWqifqva6iczUg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ERx4Xb9wM0_PyR7h-Yxy_76_Kzb_qg5GgG-cHRtL0LFqJVfm9nt4SA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrtddugddtfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvght ihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ERx4XR9OBo-XzztF_1ULqXvHfHc8C0rYHWngVuNhSaAiDJ3b6iJ8EQ> <xmx:ERx4Xee4mxNoh15MW5hlxJErJ428dk83Q907SYPeIJ_kIIxqhOteGA> <xmx:ERx4XdtjAFN4Ovo5ssCt8g2wyNm0msNzkgh78OGL2eZrTYzf68u6Rw> <xmx:ERx4XUyti9th5q3TtcKG8145zebu4C-jR4soJ1MudVK4GIQF-BY-nQ>
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1A565D6005A; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <F2D6FBAB-7DED-41AE-9560-4D0D13B15107@ericsson.com> <1BF349D9-8ABB-4844-965A-A43964E18A41@fugue.com> <CAMm+LwiMSdxq=grFfkbs5HZX3LXe3UdOOwb7JQDX6f1UQ_qfCw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1909101245450.9855@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAMm+LwhqF1g9cOxr1wsyO6DZaYREe24B6Wk15fXEegQ1oRO7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <ba4231c2-a3e9-dc8d-2cd8-edc727c9f9ab@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:56:32 -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: <CAMm+LwhqF1g9cOxr1wsyO6DZaYREe24B6Wk15fXEegQ1oRO7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8AD0A1DCC07966B87ABA7554"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jrUzh8Pw_xpZCkGH401D65-o6lE>
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, 10 Sep 2019 21:56:38 -0000

On 9/10/19 5:23 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

>     You seem to be assigning a bad motive to anyone who wants to improve
>     the atmosphere for discussion within the IETF by stating "tone
>     policing"
>     is only used as a way to do "agenda denial".
>
>
> No, I am limiting the use of the term 'tone policing' to only apply it 
> to circumstances where the intention is malicious.
>
> A request for civility is fine as long as it is not then weaponized to 
> say, 'and since this issue was raised improperly, it can never be 
> raised' or if it is clearly being raised in bad faith. For example 
> when a political candidate who attacks their opponents by 
> attaching epithets 'lying', 'sleepy', etc. then bemoans the uncivil 
> treatment they receive.
>
> The term 'tone policing' as I understand it is exclusively used to 
> imply a bad faith complaint of incivility or unprofessional behavior.

I'm okay with requests for civility.   Civility is always appropriate.   
If someone is clearly being uncivil, sure, say something to them.

I am much less comfortable with "requests", from some appointed people 
or persons, that someone phrase their words differently than they did, 
for arbitrary reasons.   I believe that such pushback can cause harm 
(and has caused harm in IETF) even when done in good faith.

(For that matter, I presume that in most instances of "tone policing", 
whatever definition you choose, the policing person often believes they 
are acting in good faith.   So I'm not sure that "good faith" is a 
useful criterion for determining when such pushback is ok - it's as 
subjective as anything else.)

There are many factors that deter people from participation in IETF.   
To me it makes sense to look at all of those factors and try to measure 
them, and try to develop a strategy that encourages wider participation 
from the entire spectrum of technically qualified individuals, and to 
educate less qualified individuals.   What doesn't make sense to me is 
to presume that such deterrence is due to a single factor, or to only 
address a single factor, or to presume that there are groups of 
technically qualified individuals who should be deterred.

Keith