Re: Tolerance
ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 17 July 2019 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 00FAF12077C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:57:16 -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, SPF_PASS=-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 trs_oofsrdCg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (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 7A28A120762 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R94V8D2JPC00QX87@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R8TNO1PZ9C000051@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01R94V8B9WFI000051@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:29:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Tolerance
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:55:31 +0200" <841CD2B2-6837-4B79-91DA-A5128AE73062@tzi.org>
References: <6EB5A0D4-DC17-40A8-B144-DC28F81C576A@employees.org> <A6135702-2156-48F1-A5D3-5F5EAE1B12B3@cooperw.in> <e24cae63-1a9b-7160-73cc-77c29e479eed@comcast.net> <9447eb2b-fd9f-4fa7-8e07-0bc0ad118292@gmail.com> <560a8a2b-3ece-4db9-4bf8-f16acbdc27a4@comcast.net> <ac5eec46-85d9-835a-fc53-02bb97fd25ab@gmail.com> <3b5c74d6-e219-512d-1c02-c7c66ca2573e@eff.org> <52052311-c9ed-7bbb-7f7e-edc1b0119075@network-heretics.com> <dcd35f0b-2388-ffbe-2feb-7bb6268e3cf5@eff.org> <02d3fb41-553a-eaf3-e77b-4918955ead48@gmail.com> <CAA=duU145Niuk1UtjvtM+R+LeL4jsE19Vb5=MWkV1MVmgA-LRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQsz=tgU6xCA5h+kV5HApZfpuU59stEmkmOpcsd2WzsUw@mail.gmail.com> <00dcede6-11a0-6a33-d4b4-ceb413f22874@gmail.com> <21fa0425-ca36-6f65-0585-2ddc64f368db@gmail.com> <6da50179-4ac4-f65b-1ebf-0e08b8c05e2e@network-heretics.com> <c4a93a79-b61e-0544-430f-4e102bf856db@foobar.org> <841CD2B2-6837-4B79-91DA-A5128AE73062@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y1TF7JvPOeVOaAPNorOrC4n1uQ4>
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:57:21 -0000
> On Jul 17, 2019, at 09:43, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote: > > > > I know of many people in the operational community who either don't contribute or who no longer contribute to IETF discussions because of perceived hostility. > Is that because of perceived hostility in tone or maybe because of perceived > hostility towards their ideas (i.e., IETF is going to ignore their points > anyway)? Speaking from my perspective as an apps area person - other areas may be different - it used to be the latter, now it's the former. There was a fairly long period where the IETF was openly hostile to work on new application protocols. And by "hostile" I mean direct accusations of ill intent both in email and at F2F meetings. (In one especially egregious case I ended up with the proponent of a particular piece of work literally on my doorstep because of the treatment they received.) The result is quite a lot of work was done elsewhere. And I have no doubt that memories of this behavior linger in some circles, to the IETF's detriment. I haven't seen this happen recently - at least not in email or in the streamed sessions I've watched. (I no longer attend F2F meetings, so maybe it's still happening there, just behind the scenes.) People seem more generally receptive to new ideas these days, and I've seen numerous instances where people have gone out of their way to be encouraging to work that is interesting but has serious flaws that need to be addressed before it can possibly be viable. But there absolutely has been a rise in tone policing. And since it adds cost to communications - both having to perform additional scrutiny of what is said as well as the risk of having something, no matter how well vetted, be taken the wrong way - in my case at least has led to my no longer bothering to provide technical commentary on minor points. And while I have no proof, nor any way to get any proof, I rather suspect I'm not alone in this. Ned
- Tolerance Ole Troan
- Re: Tolerance Eliot Lear
- Re: Tolerance Alissa Cooper
- Re: Tolerance lloyd.wood
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Michael StJohns
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Dave Cridland
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- RE: Tolerance Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Doug Royer
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Tolerance Richard Barnes
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Doug Royer
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance John Levine
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Salz, Rich
- Re: Tolerance Ross Finlayson
- Re: Tolerance Melinda Shore
- Re: Tolerance Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Nick Hilliard
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Carsten Bormann
- Re: Tolerance Ted Lemon
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance S Moonesamy
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance Ted Lemon
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Tolerance ned+ietf
- Re: Tolerance John Levine
- Re: Tolerance Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tol… Brian E Carpenter
- lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Keith Moore
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Keith Moore
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Jared Mauch
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT) Matthew A. Miller
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Nico Williams
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Ross Finlayson
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Keith Moore
- Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance Jared Mauch
- Re: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was:… Phillip Hallam-Baker