Subject: Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:22:32 +0700 (GMT+07:00)

Hi -

>From: [email-masked]
>Sent: Jan 25, 2006 6:57 PM
>To: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general
...
>Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise
>level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.

A more accurate restatement is that some good people have
already left because participation in the IETF was sufficiently
unpleasant for them, and that other productive people are on the
verge of leaving for the same reason.

How much snake oil and vitriol one is willing to tolerate varies
with the individual and how much they're rewarded (in one
way or another) for spending time in this snake pit.

>Question:  If that claim is accurate, then since there were no PR-Actions
>for the first 20 years of the IETF one would have to assume that all
>the good people left long ago (years and years) and the ones left
>here now are the ones that drove the good engineers away?

I know first-hand of several very good engineers who have stopped
participating here, and have cited the level of nastiness as a key
motivating factor.   The question is of finding a balance between the
human need for civility, and our willingness to extract work from
the uncivil.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:41:52 +0100

>human need for civility, and our willingness to extract work from

Dear Randy,
good question. We all know many cases (I get mails from unknowns due 
to the PR-action). I think there is a structural response and two cases.

The structural response is that people are who they are. Internet 
Engineers are humanly no different from others. Those who cannot work 
with average others will probably not produce a good work in such a 
community. If you do not have the guts to affront the whole IETF, who 
will take your proposition for innovation seriously? It a sort of 
community quality control PR self-action. The only problem is when 
the one ready to face the wolfpack is technically loony, or out of 
phase with the IETF objectives. IAB appeal should address that issue, 
long before any PR action. I accept it is never nice for a seasoned 
expert to be barked at by a young puppy, or a stupid opponent. But, a 
good seasoned expert is a good seasoned expert because he learned to 
take benefit from everything. Also, it permits everyone to know if a 
debate is biased or personal, if the raised technical issues are 
discussed or not.

The two different cases depends on the real motivation and impact (of 
a person or of debate). Does it belongs to the IETF scope or not. 
This is still to the IAB to decide. In the case of the WG-ltru you 
have been embarked in one of the seldom IETF cases (IP addresses 
numbering plan, DNS root are the only two comparable, and less 
important, issues I can think of) where the world is concerned. All 
the more than in the two other cases, they concern Internet issues 
(IP and DNS). Here the matter concerns the humanity core (languages 
are its most important common property). You dealt with a major 
source of power and money: the control of the IANA registry of the 
text industries. Still more important to the mankind and economy than 
music, films and games. I think you should have initially asked the 
IAN guidance I have eventually asked.

In my case, one of thre reasons of this threat, the controlling group 
used it standard protection first: initial uncivility. This does not 
work with me. Also, a private control of the IANA language tag 
registry would kill my job. So, I survived them. What is most 
interesting is that people who had been nastily ejected asked me to 
represent them, or helped me. Also, that people who felt unsecure 
asked me to be their lighting rod. I reported I observed the same 
effect with the PR-action.

This being said, I agree that some working tools and procedures, a 
jury of honor, etc. would probably help the IETF. But this seem 
beyond reach due to its communitu hysteresis, and it might affect its 
time proven capacities.
jfc

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:12:27 +0100

> verge of leaving for the same reason.

Well, if they can't stand the heat in the kitchen, maybe they should
leave.

There isn't any venue in which real discussions with real and
different points of view can take place without some sort of conflict
that might ruffle the feathers of particularly delicate individuals.
If it's that stressful for them, they probably shouldn't be involved
in such discussions.  Trying to remove all the substance of the
discussions just to avoid offending the hypersensitive makes no
logical sense.

> way or another) for spending time in this snake pit.

You think these lists are snake pits?  They seem awfully tame to me.
And I've seen much more snake-infested venues produce useful results,
so the serpents are not necessarily obstacles.

> motivating factor.

Well, there will always be more good engineers.