IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: tone policing

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 4233D1200A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 zD_ARJzUvetO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E000212001E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id n197so30827349iod.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tLHz41y34aOmRwlzyHtjOI4rhQfkcYEG2TXRm9zaA8U=; b=AW3pjYkBFNspP1qIb/kiisaMXtC2bU+DQYefqurJEtqvRFTvOPqe77u3qmMXc+6gU+ Ac3Eb6Ve1POsOWzMxrL0pWvTTexa601KOwXPAvOl1AnDwG73K8pFnwlw64+eOD5hzVcW kV8VS1hFfHksp73sOw6XuWlIFhztI4ZGpM4xcYSEvCjXvazKSPglRhcD1H9kugoIgSxU ATZ9G1BtiJ7E/vFf+V9aHgGCyP8qegW7Qs37nhLOguf/AmedZZbc+d5XsLoQX4ma0/kx 1SyHSXRAb7fgOC2U0aGQby5q49DYbLFb0US30gcbBw44BqZa8VseH3jwW+McqJszkWq8 uJJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tLHz41y34aOmRwlzyHtjOI4rhQfkcYEG2TXRm9zaA8U=; b=hq2SjU7WUS1drVYdltTwSCXNiCu6jEB4r0uv6rzGa0fuop9iqijVMkb5clHuJyOAZF JsAOXTm9NrQIlh9ORFXPk4C1v534wmUgAKBIw/WXx6reMAreT7PBTYruQ+XFijWhNh8K YGLEdA1yTcjPfnWsPQyuKIgv551iG8x1s2ZySfrf1xYHTIoe0Ck5kga7GvrJfXLP+Rme L/2b1OeDUi7D/d9pj5MqAN7xjSxlXEdt7pHbjPH1khSNHRWyo8V/jhE9U5lFkpKBh9ld RC+msL2cyvBZ60+WzhqVoD3fn58sTJIr9KLXDCqM6ny4PJHKP38OMu9wjV6xbs1OpdrQ C0Nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUuWXgQbxtQSRB/02QzxHoEsqfD0gfl0RAhroLEiCHCCU/iAD45 SxrF8LmsIBwv5DKOUBkSoa9lE63nrXSAUFUs9OI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlfOfOrhLnmsx6brqNCW1gM1kLxNnRvhIN4ghjZfywWSXR5drc4MrnX7sZNKO+AkEJmgq1fZn5tqZ9HDL2/WQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9b12:: with SMTP id j18mr21616438iok.54.1567482907976; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <964a7d97-f146-4d2e-aa3e-d39fc08f6f76@Mikes-IPhone> <20190901195210.GA27269@kduck.mit.edu> <f4a03464-9c9d-9ee5-088a-586e2bb326b1@comcast.net> <4100d3fa-3bba-41dc-3df2-bf2d3dc0f667@network-heretics.com> <6abdd246-6ac0-7369-35b8-e299373eee64@gmail.com> <3a707945-2a88-66a1-f5c0-006fae1c77c6@network-heretics.com> <B21A8972-C958-4468-9C2E-73E1773B1C91@mnot.net> <a76b3022-d94e-32c1-97c5-45cfa347481d@network-heretics.com> <BC82596B-E402-41D4-AD22-474E98F2FE86@mnot.net> <24dff788-b36c-bb3f-6cf0-39ee0ddac688@network-heretics.com> <E3F1AA5E-3D2E-40B0-8A16-44091AA9618D@mnot.net> <a0988541-45d3-198b-bdfb-6c31fe110183@network-heretics.com> <0d492a1b-c373-ccae-2274-3e5984c4caab@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d492a1b-c373-ccae-2274-3e5984c4caab@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:54:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyaeEQUtkVGFdTFYx9sLOqcSYMPAj5J0M+uyxacjW8u7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: tone policing
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebee5d05919e0d10"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p5MAlNA3wyUbI4fPWlpMA4FPnTQ>
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, 03 Sep 2019 03:55:11 -0000

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 6:26 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
wrote:

> But I'm trying to understand the broader context here, as well.  What
> we're asking for is no more stringent than what's expected in the
> typical workplace, conferences, other technical bodies, and so on.
> In many cases, it's less.  Do you feel that the typical workplace,
> conferences like RailsConf, and technical communities like Mozilla's are
> unsafe for honest technical discussion?
>

It might help to be more straightforward about the fact that "rough
consensus and running code" can often mean that the opinions of some people
count more than others, on a given issue. For example, I don't expect any
of these RFC Editor function arguments will matter much to me, so I don't
think my opinion should count for much, unless I find a bug of some sort.
This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. It prevents vote stuffing,
obstructionism, spam, and many other kinds of bad behavior.

On the other hand, this approach does dictate a more hands-off approach
when there are competing solutions. I think the IETF has gotten worse at
allowing these situations to play out.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email