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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/9/22 10:52, Jay Daley wrote:

>> Some people take any kind of criticism of what they think is important, as rudeness.
>>
>> And some people will use any tactic to shoot down a person or an idea that they don't like, including accusing the person advocating that idea of rudeness.
> Both true but both much, much rarer than people responding to genuine rudeness.

When you say "genuine rudeness", I can't tell what you mean.   I don't 
even know how a person can decide whether something is "genuine 
rudeness" without making some (likely unwarranted) assumptions about 
their intent.   And that by itself should be a red flag.

>> 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.

The inherent problem is that "rudeness" can be, in practice, basically 
just being unconventional in any way.   Often people can't even explain 
why they think something is "rude".   But while some human conventions 
are good, many human conventions are harmful, and many conventions are 
also specific to particular situations.

As an example, one human convention is to not challenge (formal or 
informal) power structures, and/or to not challenge high-status 
individuals, even by calling them on incorrect statements or reasoning, 
or misuses of their privilege.     This convention doesn't serve IETF's 
purpose at all, and I would argue that it's a destructive convention for 
humanity in general.

This problem has been recognized, in some circles, for thousands of 
years, and sometimes measures have been taken to try to defeat that 
convention.  It's why kings sometimes had "fools" to advise them - even 
if those fools sometimes lost their heads (literally) for doing their 
jobs.     It's also why IETF has traditionally shunned some of the 
trappings of "professionalism", such as by not expecting professional 
attire.  It's also why, at the Memphis IETF held at the Peabody Hotel, 
IESG put on duck bills and walked down the duck-guano stained red carpet 
to the weekly open plenary meeting.

It's impossible to speak truth to power without being seen as rude.   
It's almost impossible to change society for the better without being 
rude.   And if we in IETF are no longer trying to make the world a 
better place, we should disband.

>>    And that's why vague rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization.
> " … And that’s why no rules against rudeness are toxic to a consensus-making organization."
>
> Are we therefore agreed that both "no rules" and "vague rules" are bad, or did you mean that rudeness is too subjective to be defined in a non-vague way?
I mean something closer to the latter.   "rudeness" by itself is not a 
valid reason for shutting someone down or suppressing their speech.   If 
there's real harm being done by said person or speech, either there's a 
more specific reason than "rudeness" that should be identified, or the 
accusation itself should be called into question.

I do think that there can be specific rules against violating specific 
conventions, without impairing open dialog too much. Every deliberative 
body needs rules for decorum.   But making the rules specific means that 
they can be examined and debated as to whether those rules are 
beneficial for IETF's mission.  Keeping the rules vague means that they 
can continue to be used to suppress individuals and ideas for arbitrary 
reasons.

Keith