Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith,
At 04:32 PM 12-06-2022, Keith Moore wrote:
>(I'm not aware of that pamphlet.  Do you have a reference for it?)

I sent it off-list.

>My argument is that "rude" (and for that matter "unprofessional") 
>are harmfully vague criteria both for sanctioning speech and for 
>self-limiting of speech.

Ok.

>The obvious problem that is politely ignored in order to approve an 
>I-D for publication might or might not be an example.   Sometimes 
>the obvious problems are relatively minor and publication of the 
>document as-is will do little harm.  Sometimes the problems will get 
>fixed in AUTH48.   Individual participants can decide for themselves 
>whether to support a consensus to approve the document, despite its 
>flaws, based on their own reasoning.   The perfect is the enemy of 
>the good.   But it should not be considered "rude" to point out 
>problems, even minor ones, or rude to not support a consensus to 
>approve the document.
>
>If on the other hand people believe that they "should not" speak to 
>valid technical concerns because they think it might be considered 
>"rude", IMO they should think again.  Similar reasoning applies if 
>the question is one of speaking up to abusive speech or behavior, or 
>to a declaration of consensus when there are clearly significant 
>unaddressed concerns, or to suppression of others' relevant input 
>for no defensible reason.
>
>Sometimes there's a responsibility to speak up even when it's uncomfortable.

The person might upset the authors of the I-D, the proponents of the 
I-D, or the Area Director sponsoring the I-D by pointing out a 
problem in an I-D when it happens at a late stage.

The person has the opportunity to send an email in an open 
process.  There is an expectation that the person will not be 
subjected to abuse because he/she sent an email about a potential 
flaw in an I-D.

>But that's just one aspect of what I'm concerned about.   Mostly I 
>think that IETFers need to know that they're permitted to speak up 
>on any technical concern, or on any mishandling of process, or any 
>kind of abuse.   Even if it feels "rude" to speak up.   It always 
>feels rude to speak truth to power.   And even if the same kind of 
>speech at work would result in reprisals - because quite often at 
>work, challenging the boss is a career-limiting move even when 
>you're 100% right and the wrong decision would harm 
>people.   Fortunately, we don't have bosses in IETF.   And that's 
>just one reason that "professional" is a poor criterion for 
>inappropriate speech in IETF.

It is better not to mix workplace culture and IETF culture.

>The way that people know that it's okay to speak up is to witness 
>other people speaking up, even being "rude" or "unprofessional", and 
>not being subjected to reprisal.   An atmosphere of candor is 
>important to ensuring a safe space for honest technical discussion.

Ok.

>And yes, some people will be uncomfortable with candor, because 
>they've been conditioned to limit their speech in other 
>contexts.   But "professional" conditioning of that sort is harmful 
>to IETF's purpose.   You can't expect to effectively build consensus 
>among people who have been conditioned to withhold their opinions in 
>their workplaces.

I would limit the above to a person will be uncomfortable without 
getting into the reason(s) as the person might have valid reasons not 
to speak up.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy