Re: Effective discourse in the IETF

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/4/19 1:24 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2019, at 18:29, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/19 6:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course I'm aware that we used
>>>> consensus-based decision-making.  But the appearance of consensus is
>>>> misleading if people aren't permitted to openly express their views,
>>>> even if they do so in a suboptimal manner.
>>> Consensus is a process, and it takes effort and craftsmanship
>>> to build it.  Brutality and the argumentation style you and others
>>> are advocating would be a pretty good example of a consensus anti-
>>> pattern.
>>
>> At no time have I advocated brutality, and it's a gross 
>> mischaracterization of the argumentation style that I personally 
>> prefer.  But your current argumentation style is insulting beyond 
>> almost anything I've seen in my nearly 30 year history with IETF.
>
> Keith, if I understand this correctly, you have been arguing (a la 
> Crocker's Rules) that it is important that people be able to criticize 
> ideas in an unvarnished way and that listeners need to get over any 
> personal insult they might feel and instead focus on the content of 
> those criticisms. 

Yes, though I've repeatedly said things like "not in such an extreme 
form".   But yes, people need to try to listen to ideas, and criticism 
of ideas, in whatever form it's offered, even though this might be a 
challenge.  I see countless examples in which people reject an idea not 
because it's an inherently bad idea, but because they don't like the 
person making it, or they project all kinds of motivations onto that 
person that are often entirely figments of the readers' imaginations.   
So yes, I do believe that readers have a responsibility to try to 
overcome their prejudices when reading ideas and criticism of ideas by 
others.   And I would have thought that were obvious to most longtime 
IETF participants, so I'm surprised there's so much backlash about it.

Maybe people interpret Crocker's Rules differently than I do, but I 
don't interpret them as encouraging people to be abusive jerks.   I 
interpret them as encouraging speakers to be honest and encouraging 
listeners to look past their own prejudices.   What I've experienced for 
most of my time in IETF is that speaking honestly can be tremendously 
difficult to do precisely because audiences can be so hostile (see above 
paragraph) [*].   And while it's all well and good to want people to 
couch their ideas in palatable terms, and one can be more effective if 
one manages to do so, the demand that many people seem to want to impose 
(which I interpret as effectively "express this idea in terms that I 
like, or that avoid my prejudices") imposes yet another barrier to 
getting the idea out at all, and that's tragic.

Also I fundamentally do not believe that it's the responsibility of the 
lone speaker to avoid all of the numerous readers' prejudices, and it 
seems to me that readers' prejudices are generally a far bigger barrier 
to getting the idea out than any ill intent on the speaker's part.   So 
I think readers in IETF need to try harder and not expect to be 
accommodated.   But to be clearer, I do expect speakers to act in good 
faith, which probably includes not trying to push readers' buttons.

> And yet here, instead of focusing on Melinda's actual criticisms, you 
> focus on your interpretation of her "characterization" of your 
> position[*], criticize her "argumentation style", and are "insulted" 
> (and earlier, "belittled" by her pointing out that what you say might 
> be in conflict with consensus-based decision making). That's a pretty 
> impressive level of irony.
>
> ([*] I took her use of the word "brutality" has meaning "an act that 
> is harsh and without consideration to the feelings of another", which 
> seems pretty consonant with how you were using "brutal honesty".)

Ah, to me "brutality" is more extreme than that - something like a 
willful intent to do serious harm.

I found Melinda's message baffling because it seemed to be exhibiting 
ill intent from someone I don't think I've ever seen exhibit such 
before.  If anything the attack seemed more extreme because of this.   
If she was trying to deliberately push my buttons in an effort to get me 
to see the flaws in my argument, it didn't have the desired effect 
because (silly me?) I took her message at face value rather than as a 
stunt.   But it also seemed to me that she was acting in a way that 
contradicted what she was advocating, which to me was not supportive of 
her argument.   If I misinterpreted her intent, I'm relieved.

>
> So, getting to the substance of both of your comments rather than on 
> how they were presented:
>
>> You'd prefer the appearance of consensus obtained from a group that's 
>> hostile to technical input?  Real consensus requires openness to 
>> input, even input that's unsettling.
>
> You've very much missed Melinda's point. 7282 not only points out that 
> it is important to listen to all technical points, but it also makes 
> quite clear that a failure of consensus can also come from people 
> "giving up". As Melinda says:
>
>>> And I know you've heard this before but I'm going to
>>> repeat it because I think it's a huge problem: harshness is going
>>> to stop people from expressing their views, as well
>
> If I am participating in a WG and happen to have a showstopper 
> technical point, but it is shouted down by someone who, on the grounds 
> of "being brutally honest", is simply being an ass, I might very well 
> decide that it is no longer worth my energy and walk away from the 
> noxious environment. And if nobody happened to really understand my 
> point because it was drowned out by all of the "brutal honesty", the 
> consensus has failed miserably, as will the protocol being produced.

I don't disagree with that.  It's just that in my experience it seems 
that the audience is MUCH more likely to label the speaker as "being an 
ass" when the speaker really is acting in good faith and trying to 
express a point despite his/her frustration at the hostile/prejudiced 
audience, than that the speaker is actually being an ass.

And as I've said a couple of times, feel free to suggest a better phrase 
than "brutally honest", because I think it's being taken in a way other 
than that I intended.   My experience is that many (most?) people have a 
hard time even with well-intended honesty - honesty that's not trying to 
offend anyone - and often react with hostility to it because of their 
own prejudices.   But by (hastily) choosing the words "brutal honesty" I 
wasn't intending to suggest that speakers should intend to be abusive, 
but rather that speakers should feel free to contribute technical ideas 
and criticism in good faith even if those ideas and criticism might be 
seen as offensive to people attached to different ideas, or people 
projecting ill intent on the speaker that doesn't actually exist.

> So you have to decide if you want to occasionally tone down the 
> "brutal honesty" and listen more carefully so as not to risk missing 
> important technical points that might be lost because others in the 
> group won't tolerate that "brutal honesty".
>
>>> and it's
>>> really not at all clear to me that their participation is less
>>> valuable than participation by people who feel muzzled by an
>>> expectation of courtesy.
>>
>> What I have consistently found for my whole life is that it's 
>> essential to stand up to abusive people, and people who use lies and 
>> intimidation to suppress input and distort facts.    You seem to be 
>> speaking out in favor of such tactics, maybe even employing them 
>> yourself.    I prefer to believe that you've simply misunderstood me 
>> or have a warped view of who I am and what I stand for, but no amount 
>> of trying to correct your impression seems to work.   So it's hard to 
>> see it as anything other than abuse.
>
> I think it is you, Keith, who has misunderstood Melinda's point, 
> accusing her of ill motives instead of presuming there is a good point 
> in there and attempting to look for it. I would suggest a reset on 
> your part, and you attempting to understand the point being made 
> instead of trying to be so "brutally honest" with her.

Well, again, I took it at face value rather than as a stunt; assumed it 
was honest rather than playing a role.   (I've rarely found stunts 
effective when I've tried them).

But I don't think I missed the broader point - some people feel like the 
bulk of the responsibility is on the speaker to try to avoid offending 
the audience, and I feel like the bulk of the responsibility is on the 
listeners to try to avoid being fooled by their own prejudices.    But 
it's not as if the entirety of the responsibility is on either party.   
I hope that clarifies things.

Keith