Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (was: Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 7:35 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hiya,
> On 31/10/2021 23:25, Jay Daley wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/10/2021, at 11:31 AM, Keith Moore<[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's hard to escape the impression that some of those insisting on
> >> "professional behavior" are looking for a way to exclude those who
> >> they deem not qualified, so as to get out of the way of the Big
> >> Corporations who want IETF to do what they want it to do.
>
> > While I understand the allure of conspiracy theories, it is far more
> > straightforward and far more accurate to assume that those insisting
> > on "professional behaviour" are simply looking to exclude
> > "unprofessional behaviour" wherever that is found, with no ulterior
> > motive.
>

It is really not helpful to raise the fact that there are some people who
believe in absurd theories involving alien reptiles to respond to a person
describing a practice that has been commonplace in IETF for the entire time
I have been involved.

We design international communications systems. We have people attending
our meetings with the names of organizations anyone with just a little bit
of familiarity with the intelligence world know to be open covers.



> I don't think there's any necessity here to impugn someone as
> finding conspiracy theories alluring.
>
> These things change over time and in different locales. At
> this time, ISTM there are some corporate HR regimes that are
> both a vast improvement over what was seen a decade or two
> ago, and yet at the same time, can be validly criticised as
> being hugely hypocritical. My impression is that Keith is
> more making the point that "professional" in such a context
> is problematic. (A point with which I agree btw.)
>

There is a subspecialty in information engagement called agenda denial. It
is a set of tactics that are used to respond to an unwinnable argument by
denying discussion.

One of those tactics is to tell people that it is impossible to discuss an
issue because people tried to raise it in the 'wrong way'. I have seen that
happen on occasion in IETF meetings but Keith comes from a locale where
that particular tactic and in particular the term 'unprofessional' is
frequently employed as pretext for preventing dismantling of things most
people thought were dismantled in the 1960s.

Anyone can be civil, but as someone who spent a considerable amount of time
and effort to become a chartered engineer, I consider the use of the term
'professional' to imply someone holds the relevant qualifications.


Since I don't believe we should limit participation to people holding
particular credentials, the term civil is prefered.