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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

If I am reading your email correctly, most of your concern is about the 
vague definition and vague applicaiton of "rude".

As far as I know, the terms of reference use terms like "personal 
attack" and other descriptions which are much less vague.  We tend to 
use "rude" as the shorthand for the discussions of the topic rather than 
reciting the defintions and descriptions in the RFCs.

Do you see the RFCs referring to "rude"?

Yours,

Joel

On 6/11/2022 5:50 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On 6/9/22 12:41, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>>> It's not that people can never be rude (they can), or that rudeness 
>>>> is a good thing (it's not).   But much of what people call rudeness 
>>>> is subjective and arbitrary.   If people can be shut down for 
>>>> rudeness, that inherently stifles a robust dialog aimed at 
>>>> discovering technical truth.
>>> The counterpoint to that is "If people are not shut down for 
>>> rudeness, that inherently stifles an open dialog …"
>>
>> Except that that's not true, or even defensible.   If anything it's 
>> the opposite of the truth.
>
> I thought a slight clarification might be useful, because some people 
> are probably thinking "how can Keith be in denial that rudeness can 
> shut down dialog?"
>
> There's an important difference between observing that rudeness can 
> harm a productive dialog (which I agree with), and concluding that 
> "rude" individuals must be sanctioned or otherwise discouraged (which 
> I disagree with, at least without a much more precise definition of 
> what constitutes inappropriate behavior than "rude").
>
> It's not only that "rude" is inherently vague and subjective. It's 
> also that there are already too many people in IETF who think that 
> /they/ are fit to decide when someone else has crossed the line, that 
> their own (likely unexamined) notion of what's appropriate should 
> dictate others' behavior.   Those people should be discouraged rather 
> than encouraged.
>
> I've also seen too many instances in which "rude" individuals were 
> deemed "rude" (or worse) because they told inconvenient truths, or 
> because their technical agenda threatened someone else's technical 
> agenda.
>
> Sometimes IETF discussions desperately need a dose of truth, but 
> people are afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled as "rude" or 
> worse.     I have lost count of the number of times that I've spoken 
> up about something uncomfortable, and received significant amounts of 
> private mail thanking me for doing so.
>
> Candor is essential for IETF to do its job well, and it needs to be 
> encouraged.   Discouraging "rude" behavior has the opposite effect.
>
> Tolerance is a necessary condition for IETF to function.   The trick 
> is to draw a better line between "conventional" and "rude".
>
> Keith
>
>