Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:03 AM Theodore Ts'o <[e-mail]> wrote:

> FWIW, my own interpretation of Ben and Alissa's intervention (and I
> speak as a former SAA) is that it sounded very much like what the
> "geek feminism" web sites frequently refer to as "tone policing"[1]
>
> [1] https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/


This is a thorny subject, and I don't want to derail the discussion too
much, but criticism of "tone policing" fails the symmetry test. Those who
engage in "tone policing" are equivalently engaging in "enforcing their
terms of engagement". If I don't want to have a conversation with angry
people, that's my choice. If you don't like it, find someone else to argue
with. That having been said, candor is absolutely necessary to getting good
technical outcomes.

I think the trick is figuring out how to be candid without being rude.
Offense is definitely a manifestation in the mind of the reader/listener,
so it's not entirely within the power of the writer/speaker to avoid
causing offense (nor, would I argue, should people walk around on eggshells
to avoid causing offense to the long tail), but certain modes of engagement
can certainly have a measurably negative effect on the standards process by
pushing out folks who would otherwise make valuable technical contributions
but who refuse to engage with those who employ invective as an everyday
tool. I don't think it's necessarily a race to the bottom (as a community
entirely comprising misanthropes will have a hard time propagating their
ideas outside of the group), but it's not clear the equilibrium reached
will be optimal.

Basically, my position is that contributors should make frank technical
judgments and use clear language without being jerks. There's definitely a
grey area, ripe for tussle, but as long as we don't stray too far to one
extreme, neither participation nor technical outcomes are likely to suffer
greatly.

Kyle