Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/5/21 7:25 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> Keith Moore <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> I am continuing to press this issue because I wish to be vigilant
>> against degradation of IETF's traditions of openness and
>> consensus-based decision-making.
> [Though I'm replying to Keith, I'm really picking one somewhat arbitrary
> message to reply to here, as many points have been raised on both sides
> that the below could apply to.  Thus, this is not directed at you
> Keith.]
And I realize that you weren't replying to me specifically (and thanks 
for saying that) but I do have a specific response.
> One important aspect to consider, that's been left out of this
> conversation so far, is the other effect that these discussions have on
> the body of the IETF.  What has been discussed, so far, is the potential
> damage against openness if any form of censorship or code of conduct is
> allowed.

I would not characterize it that way, and I actually recognize the 
necessity of occasional pushback and even (in hopefully very rare cases) 
censorship.   But the problems created by vague criteria and secret 
enforcement are not limited to a lack of "openness".   Another huge 
problem is that vague criteria can (and have) been used by IETF 
leadership and others to suppress criticism of ideas and discussion of 
alternatives, both on topics of general importance to IETF and within 
working groups.

So my recommendations are:

a) the criteria for what's considered unacceptable need to be more 
precisely defined, and vetted by IETF consensus, and not merely what 
someone considers "unprofessional".  Such vague criteria practically 
invite abuse.

b) don't let the IETF Chair or IESG pick the enforcers; make the SAAs 
and anyone else who has a similar responsibility entirely independent of 
the IESG.   (This might be somewhat problematic because WG chairs are 
sometimes expected to fill that role, but perhaps WG chairs should be 
instructed to refer messages that they consider problematic to SAAs and 
let the SAAs do the enforcement)

Beyond that, I actually do believe that IETF discourse is necessarily 
different than one expects in, say, a corporate environment.   In a 
corporate environment being critical of the boss's or corporate 
overlords' ideas can be a career limiting move;in IETF everyone should 
be free to respectfully criticize any ideas, even the ideas of IESG and 
IAB members.   In a corporate environment there is generally centralized 
"leadership" (the degree to which this is actually true varies).   IETF 
is more like a hive mind, and it should be possible for any participant 
to introduce new ideas and thus "lead from the bottom" if those ideas 
are found to be attractive.   Also, the scope of what IETF is dealing 
with is greater than that of most corporations, the number of diverse 
and sometimes competing interests that need to be taken into account to 
make a good standard for the whole Internet is larger.   Companies can 
say "to hell with the competition" to a much greater degree than IETF 
can.   IETF is (and to the extent that it isn't, should be) also more 
diverse in its participation than many corporations.

So IETF has a mission that is distinct from that of any company. And 
just like some companies try to cultivate a company culture (which is 
generally considered perfectly ok), so IETF also needs its own 
culture.   Among the aspects of that culture that I believe are 
well-established are:

- Being passionate about our work is ok, and often a Good Thing.   That 
doesn't mean it's okay to be abusive, though sometimes people let their 
passion get out of hand and need to back off a bit.  Inherent in our 
work is trying to make tradeoffs between interests that don't 
immediately understand each other and sometimes don't even speak the 
same (technical or other) language.   Yes, this is often uncomfortable, 
and a willingness to tolerate discomfort is very helpful in being 
successful at this work.
- Anybody can participate, and we help newcomers deal with the learning 
curve of both culture and process.
- We are all in this together, working to make the Internet better.
- We're all supposed to be representing our best technical judgment for 
what's good for the Internet as a whole, rather than trying to push some 
company's agenda.
- We make decisions by rough consensus, which means (among other things) 
"don't look to the boss or those higher in the hierarchy for the right 
answers"
- Titles, position, who you work for shouldn't matter.   We mostly 
function as peers.   To the extent that we don't function as peers, it's 
mostly for the sake of process, not about deciding who is right.
- Competence is essential.   Nobody is competent at everything but 
having the background and insight (and often experience) needed to make 
sound technical judgment is necessary to participate effectively.

And yes, there's a learning curve.   That's necessary.   When everyone 
starts insisting that we all behave like good corporate citizens, IETF 
should disband.

> This is your IETF.  What do you want it to look like?

I want IETF to BE a place in which people are free to argue passionately 
for what they believe are better ideas and/or to criticize ideas they 
believe to be harmful.   At the same time I want IETF to BE a place that 
filters out technically poor ideas, or even ideas that others can't 
understand (yet), with relative ease rather than argue about them 
endlessly.   And I want IETF to BE a place where ideas are judged on 
technical merit (of various kinds) rather than arbitrary prejudice.

Keith