Re: Choices or language and tone (was: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation)

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:35 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 09:59 -0400 Russ Housley
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > --On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 20:44 -0400 Alissa Cooper
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> As I mentioned to you off-list, your request below for Ben to
> >> use his inside voice is demeaning, unprofessional language
> >> that is not suitable for the IETF discussion list, per RFC
> >> 3005. Repeated use of unprofessional language may be deterring
> >> others from voicing their opinion for fear of being
> >> disrespected. It is important that everyone in the community
> >> feels comfortable enough to express their own views on the
> >> IETF discussion list if they choose to do so.
> >> ...
> >
> > Alissa:
> >
> > Mike has raised some topics that need discussion, but the tone
> > does worry me.  I believe the tone is keeping others from
> > voicing their opinion, and that it is important that everyone
> > feel comfortable enough to express their own view on this list.
>
> Russ,
>
> I've read the subsequent discussion but I think yours might be
> the best note to respond specifically to, so am doing so.  In my
> long note on this subject, I tried to avoid expressing a strong
> opinion about what Mike said in the message Alissa cites.
> Personally, I would have preferred that he express himself
> somewhat differently.  However, probably like most others who
> have been around the IETF and contributed to its technical work
> for a long time, I've had my ideas ridiculed and have been
> insulted and demeaned by people from IETF's history who were
> masters of the arts of insults and invective.  While I have
> never learned to like being insulted, demeaned, or harassed and
> don't expect others to either, I think it is reasonable to
> expect that the IETF leadership and designated functionaries
> (SAAs and IETF Chairs both included) will try to avoid being too
> easily offended or outraged even when they are (quite
> reasonably) trying to protect others who might feel
> uncomfortable expressing their own views in what they might
> perceive as a hostile environment.
>
> However, I am concerned about two aspects of this issue that may
> be quite separate and that impact, respectively, whether or not
> people feel free to express their views and whether it is
> considered reasonable to question "leadership" or "management"
> decisions.
>
> (1) When a comment like Mike's --which would rank as extremely
> mild in any catalogue of abusive and unprofessional behavior in
> the IETF, not that relationship justifies it-- gets the amount
> and level of attention it has gotten, one possible effect is the
> presumably-desired one of making others feel more secure about
> expressing their own views.   Two others, at least equally
> likely IMO, are convincing someone who is contemplating speaking
> up that saying something unpopular or disapproving will get them
> attacked and thereby convincing them to be silent instead and
> convincing the person being criticized for their style or tone
> that it just isn't work trying to comment on that issue, or IETF
> issues generally, any more.  That clearly isn't desirable either.
>

Getting people people stop and think about whether they're being
unprofessional is like the whole point of having a code of conduct and
enforcing it.  The clearer we make our norms, the easier the decision will
be for the would-be contributor.

--Richard



> (2) It has been mentioned by others, but I've very concerned
> that, when someone has tried to ask questions about what
> occurred and why, and has to ask them repeatedly because he or
> she isn't getting clear answers, that there is the appearance
> that some comment is seized on as an excuse to push back against
> and condemn the question-asking.   In terms of discouraging
> people from speaking freely and expressing their own views
> (and/or questioning the behavior of those in authority), that is
> about as bad as it gets, whether that was the intent of the
> remarks or not.  I am reminded of a nasty children's "game" in
> which party A tries to stay within whatever rules have been set
> by trying to provide party B to respond in a way that violates
> those rules and then demands that party B be punished for that.
> In other contexts, party A is called "the bully" and party B
> "the victim".
>
> best,
>    john
>
>
>
>