Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship program)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 17 April 2021 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 F09663A2A7F; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 10:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gDAmTeMCfl39; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F24323A2A7D; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 10:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lXojo-000E6K-NF; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:28:08 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:28:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, ietf@ietf.org
cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship program)
Message-ID: <71A3F4ECF01DBB59C3038E1D@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <f85245a0-f2c0-cc2f-88f9-465aaab9659a@mtcc.com>
References: <CAHw9_iKcacK-gsmL9P_yBuyeGYnB44j1=TxF=VnG3Uu65JKJcQ@mail.gmail.com> <10C5497B-FCC3-45BE-B6A7-EE3A1C1D6883@akamai.com> <f02a58f3-ff79-3f3f-fc31-7aa17f7d14aa@mtcc.com> <698cf4f7-de67-8efb-a944-b29da42dca31@network-heretics.com> <dc7ff33f-a007-7afe-7d1b-92a242b7c799@mtcc.com> <aaebce66-6318-dc16-b8b0-5a7d7e3361a3@network-heretics.com> <6f709190-7f44-906b-a36b-90a8a4d73153@mtcc.com> <1b9fd5ac-5ef6-0114-4a2e-96e7a53aa665@network-heretics.com> <cec30d23-6d88-9de9-c606-b6cc2bbeb922@mtcc.com> <3fa5b354-c11c-9051-8416-46859f10cce6@network-heretics.com> <20210416031704.gu46kq46fmp6a3yh@crankycanuck.ca> <6AABB43E-FB70-4FDE-AA59-3D2AE25F4B64@me.com> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB> <f85245a0-f2c0-cc2f-88f9-465aaab9659a@mtcc.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vwXiBWHTHfwWYfzxJ5l206RA17Q>
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: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:28:16 -0000
(IESG copied because of the last paragraph) --On Saturday, April 17, 2021 08:07 -0700 Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 4/16/21 8:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> But Randy's other point is, IMO, important too. Suppose we >> could adopt a rule that forbade snarling at people until after >> they had participated in the IETF for a few years and >> magically changed the culture so that everyone observed it, >> at the same time declaring open season on people with longer >> participation records or at least a couple of RFCs behind >> them. Whether because of what Randy describes as having a >> shred of empathy or because of the sense that they are likely >> to be treated obnoxiously and aggressively about the time >> they were ready to make significant contributions, people >> would still go away after watching others be mistreated, >> abused, or dismissed. > > I don't know how you enforce such a thing because who knows > whether somebody is new to IETF or just new to a particular > working group? Frankly there ought not be such a distinction, > as it is intimately related to the "security researcher" > problem discussed previously. Mike, Sorry... I obviously wasn't clear. I was trying to pose a hypothetical and extreme scenario precisely to point out that it would not work, not advocating it. That was why I said "suppose we could" and "magically". In the real world, not only could such a thing not be enforced, but we would need, IMO, to be collectively insane to try it. > The problem is that too often > working groups become fiefdoms and accrue self-coronated > manner lords while the chairs sit idly by, or worse enable > them. It is extremely off putting for chairs to shut down > questions as off topic or members jumping down your throat for > questions that cannot reasonably be answered any other way. Indeed, that is at least a key part of the problem -- and a problem that I believe Andrew, myself, Randy, and probably Brian were trying to address from our different perspectives. It is the part of this problem that I think has gotten worse in the last decade or so. It is one that the anti-harassment procedures and guidelines for conduct developed during that period either do not address or have proven inadequate to prevent or remedy. I suggest that guidelines for improved terminology will not help either. People can jump down the throats of others (or snarl at them) for departing from homogeneous opinion or the preference of leadership in a WG (or even in other contexts) without violating any specific rules (even though it is fairly clear from RFC 7154 that it is bad behavior) with impunity. > Who needs that kind of grief? Especially when you're not > getting paid to take it. Exactly. I don't see any way to stop that behavior -- and stop it from driving people away from those WGs at least and probably the IETF more generally -- unless: (1) The IESG, perhaps borrowing ideas for other SDOs, will not tolerate (i.e., charter or allow to continue) WGs whose participation represents only a narrow range of interests. (2) The IESG and community will not tolerate WGs (or other groups) in which shutting down dissent or questions that differ from the opinions of WG leadership (including de facto leadership by those you describe as manor lords) is a regular practice. (3) The community has effective ways to push back on individuals who exhibit that sort of shutting down or snarling behavior regularly, whether it is confined to one WG or not. Of course a WG should not need to tolerate someone who raises the same questions or proposals repeatedly after they have been fairly considered and rejected, but that is disruptive behavior and we have many years of mostly-successful experience in dealing with it. Independent of the impact on feelings and participation, the behavior you describe damages the credibility of the IETF and its work if a cabal, especially one with shared commercial interests, can take over (or initiate) a WG, push documents into and through IETF Last Call, and then successfully claim IETF consensus and standards status for the results. And none of the above would likely be meaningful or effective unless there is also a mechanism for reporting problems and having them considered that does not put the reporter at risk for further abuse. In that regard, the recent IESG statement about Last Calls may be a step backward. If someone feels a need to make a Last Call comment identifying ways in which claimed consensus (in a WG, on a mailing list, etc.) is invalid because those who disagreed were silenced or driven away, it should be possible to make that comment to the IESG with the same degree of anonymity associated with the Ombudsteam process. More generally, someone should be able to make such a report to an AD or the whole IESG at any time and have it taken seriously without disclosing the identity of the reporter. At least for Last Calls, that seems to be precluded by the new process description. john
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… John Levine
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Eliot Lear
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Jim Fenton
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Salz, Rich
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… John Levine
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Christian Huitema
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Livingood, Jason
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Dan Harkins
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Nico Williams
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Colin Perkins
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… tom petch
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… John R Levine
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- motivation to "join" IETF (was: the old fellowshi… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Leif Johansson
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Warren Kumari
- RE: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael McBride
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Wes Hardaker
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… scott
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Michael Thomas
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Keith Moore
- New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship program) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Fernando Gont
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Fernando Gont
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian Carpenter
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… S Moonesamy
- Re: motivation to "join" IETF (was: the old fello… Lars Eggert
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… tom petch
- RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Salz, Rich
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Warren Kumari
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Mary B
- RE: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're fa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… S Moonesamy
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- RE: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Larry Masinter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… John C Klensin
- RE: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Larry Masinter
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Richardson
- Re: New-comers (was Re: the old fellowship progra… Michael Thomas
- What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: New-c… Keith Moore
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… Keith Moore
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? (was: N… Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Masataka Ohta
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Dave Cridland
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Christian Huitema
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Salz, Rich
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Clint Chaplin
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Salz, Rich
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Randy Presuhn
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective T… Ofer Inbar
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Randy Presuhn
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Keith Moore
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Michael Thomas
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Richard Shockey
- adapting IETF in light of github and similar tool… Keith Moore
- RE: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Larry Masinter
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Richard Shockey
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Leif Johansson
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Lloyd W
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Dave Cridland
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Lloyd W
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Keith Moore
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … John Levine
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Salz, Rich
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Nick Hilliard
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Keith Moore
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Eliot Lear
- RE: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Larry Masinter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Fred Baker
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Jay Daley
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Jay Daley
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Lloyd W
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Jay Daley
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Bron Gondwana
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar … Nick Hilliard