Re: tone policing

Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Mon, 09 September 2019 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 4483F12004F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 T7Y-ytRykr5N for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C8B5120033 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net (cpe-76-93-158-174.san.res.rr.com [76.93.158.174]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.8-0 #1001) with ESMTP id <0PXL00NLM7I76C@wwwlocal.goatley.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:20:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Dans-MacBook-Pro.local ([69.12.173.8]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #1001) with ESMTPSA id <0PXL009E37GPFO@trixy.bergandi.net> for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net ([69.12.173.8] EXTERNAL) (EHLO Dans-MacBook-Pro.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:19:38 -0700
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:20:26 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Subject: Re: tone policing
In-reply-to: <a7a9f058-0acf-fa3b-c96e-c2504caf497e@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-id: <dd76cd73-e194-2f45-aa45-39be604cd1d2@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=69.12.173.8)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net [69.12.173.8] (EHLO Dans-MacBook-Pro.local)
References: <F2D6FBAB-7DED-41AE-9560-4D0D13B15107@ericsson.com> <1BF349D9-8ABB-4844-965A-A43964E18A41@fugue.com> <29c10b3d-8f48-8888-68c9-7390b1e4df5d@network-heretics.com> <ae8353f1-adf9-c615-a721-9fba85b40d5c@foobar.org> <059707fd-afea-e4b4-fa77-967e38206c52@network-heretics.com> <737e066d-4646-7021-3466-6a66f8f0a28e@lounge.org> <259BC9E3-EE7B-4152-8BDD-3900D2D75775@network-heretics.com> <B13131F3-BFB5-4C97-B5A4-E96C34CDAB7C@akamai.com> <4cc1dcb9-ae84-2cef-6439-247a5ccd41af@network-heretics.com> <A166D628-8356-4E72-A302-4E45988C1BDB@akamai.com> <daa6c925-8306-cb91-b5a0-bb8c7450eafc@lounge.org> <a7a9f058-0acf-fa3b-c96e-c2504caf497e@joelhalpern.com>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [190909c] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uGPtaBVCTc1jK8W47ENzwUgp-EA>
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:20:33 -0000

   Hi Joel,

On 9/9/19 3:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Dan, you asked for specific examples of speech whose acceptability has 
> changed.
>
> A clear and simple example is personal attacks.  It is no longer 
> acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to 
> an argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so 
> we should ignore your input."  Other even more extreme and personal 
> comments were once accepted in this community.   they are not accepted 
> any longer.

   I witnessed someone at the mic tell a presenter that his was the 
worst idea
in the history of the IETF. That's not really acceptable but it was also 
way back
in the 20th century. I haven't heard that kind of talk in 2 decades. 
Admittedly
I tend to hang out with a small group of people and probably missed some 
egregious
behavior but I don't think personal attacks have ever been OK.

> This debate seems to be about how do we handle cases which are not 
> simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such. (Part 
> of the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult 
> and when.)   Given what has been acceptable in at least some working 
> groups in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the 
> situation. Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid 
> going overboard and losing the free technical discussion that is the 
> core of our work.

   Right, and there's the rub: "but can be taken as such." We are sadly 
becoming a kind of victim
culture where claiming victimhood empowers the claimant. Combine that 
with the fact that there are
many people entering the workaday world with a degree who have gotten 
participation trophies their
entire life, had helicopter parents ensuring that nothing troubling ever 
entered their bubble, and
who went to universities with safe spaces (coloring books optional) that 
insulated them from things
that might sound "harsh" or "mean", and now we have a potential to do 
great harm.

   Yes, we need to avoid going overboard. Agree 100%. How do we handle 
cases that aren't simple and
obvious personal insults? We let them slide and wait. I'd say ignore the 
comment as much as
possible. If the speaker meant it as an attack a subsequent statement 
will be more simple and obvious,
and there will be a subsequent statement if the attack is ignored.

   regards,

   Dan.

> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 9/9/2019 6:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Rich,
>>
>> On 9/9/19 1:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>      > The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now 
>>> commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more 
>>> inclusivity.  You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I 
>>> misunderstand you?
>>>>     You misunderstand me.    I do not object to trying to be more 
>>>> inclusive,
>>>      but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined 
>>> constraints
>>>      on IETF contributions.
>>> I am sorry if I was not clear.  I am saying "we are choosing to do A 
>>> in order to get B"  You are saying "I want B without A"
>>>
>>> So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?
>>
>>    You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
>>
>>    What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me 
>> specific examples of things
>> that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as 
>> less so?
>>
>>    I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not 
>> sure what A is.
>>
>>    If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for 
>> newcomers then great.
>> If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming 
>> it "toxic" or "harsh" or
>> "hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.
>>
>>    regards,
>>
>>    Dan.
>>
>>
>>