Subject: cultural sensitivity towards new comers

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:09:17 -0400

[Not in reply to any specific message, because I don't want this to read 
like an accusation against anyone who has participated in this thread.   
It's not.]

I believe that an insistence on politeness in IETF would likely have 
tragic consequences.

For one thing, politeness differs from one culture to another. What's 
polite in one culture is rude in another.   It's all well and good to be 
sensitive to other people's cultural assumptions (as well as one's own), 
but sometimes those assumptions don't serve IETF's purpose well.  For 
example, we don't need a social hierarchy in IETF that protects those 
who are older, or more experienced in IETF, or holding leadership 
positions, or working for big companies, from having their judgment 
questioned.   (And yet I've see people in IETF withhold criticism for 
many of these reasons.)

So if we're trying to make IETF less hostile to newcomers, and/or to 
people who have different presumptions of politeness and rudeness, we 
should talk in terms of specific behaviors and speech patterns rather 
than presume that "politeness" means the same thing to everyone.   It 
doesn't.

Also, I've seen so many examples where an expectation of "politeness" 
was used to protect abusive people, and/or to manipulate people into 
agreeing to things that were harmful (including in IETF but not 
exclusively there), that I've become very skeptical of demands for 
politeness.

At first hearing, such expectations sound reasonable.   What could be 
wrong with politeness?   Most of the time, nothing. It's when politeness 
is expected or demanded, when it becomes more important than the 
integrity of our work, that it becomes a problem.   Manipulative people 
will construct their arguments in such a way that it seems impolite to 
object, no matter how harmful their demands might be.  Yes, even in IETF.

*In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems 
associated with a proposal, than to withhold such input for fear of 
seeming rude. *  It's even an obligation if the consequences seem 
important.   Even if you don't believe you have the status necessary to 
question the judgment of that person. Even if you might be wrong.  Even 
if your voice shakes.

Of course, you should try to do that respectfully.  But it's better to 
be blunt than to not speak up at all.   This is vital.

Keith

p.s. A colleague expressed this in private mail and I hope he doesn't 
mind me repeating this here.  It's been reported that Boeing designed 
the 737MAX stability augmentation firmware to only read one 
angle-of-attack sensor for each flight, alternating between 
left-and-right on successive flights.  I hope this report is in error, 
but for the purpose of this example I'll assume it's accurate.   Of all 
of the aeronautical engineers which must surely have been involved in 
the design and review of the 737MAX firmware, it's hard for me to 
believe that nobody noticed that using the angle-of-attack sensors in 
this way was actually less reliable than using a single sensor - because 
the alternating behavior would mask failures and create more 
opportunities for such failures to result in catastrophe.   I sincerely 
hope that the culture at Boeing, and every other aircraft manufacturer, 
is to encourage calling attention to potential safety issues even when, 
say, this involves calling a superior or more senior person's judgment 
into question, and there's no penalty for doing so even if one is 
wrong.  But if the report turns out to be true, I hope a lot of 
attention is paid to the safety culture at Boeing and other aircraft 
manufacturers also.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:49:31 +0000 (UTC)

"In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems associated with a proposal, than to withhold such input for fear of seeming rude.   It's even an obligation if the consequences seem important.   Even if you don't believe you have the status necessary to question the judgment of that person.  Even if you might be wrong.  Even if your voice shakes"
And even if it completely destroys your subsequent career prospects!

 Lloyd Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood

      From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
 To: [email-masked] 
 Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2019, 8:10
 Subject: cultural sensitivity towards new comers
   
  [Not in reply to any specific message, because I don't want this to read like an accusation against anyone who has participated in this thread.   It's not.] I believe that an insistence on politeness in IETF would likely have tragic consequences. For one thing, politeness differs from one culture to another.  What's polite in one culture is rude in another.   It's all well and good to be sensitive to other people's cultural assumptions (as well as one's own), but sometimes those assumptions don't serve IETF's purpose well.  For example, we don't need a social hierarchy in IETF that protects those who are older, or more experienced in IETF, or holding leadership positions, or working  for big companies, from having their judgment questioned.   (And yet I've see people in IETF withhold criticism for many of these reasons.)
  So if we're trying to make IETF less hostile to newcomers, and/or to people who have different presumptions of politeness and rudeness, we should talk in terms of specific behaviors and speech patterns rather than presume that "politeness" means the same thing to everyone.   It doesn't. Also, I've seen so many examples where an expectation of "politeness" was used to protect abusive people, and/or to manipulate people into agreeing to things that were harmful (including in IETF but not exclusively there), that I've become very skeptical of demands for politeness. At first hearing, such expectations sound reasonable.   What could be wrong with politeness?   Most of the time, nothing.   It's when politeness is expected or demanded, when it becomes more important than the integrity of our work, that it becomes a problem.   Manipulative people will construct their arguments in such a way that it seems impolite to object, no matter how harmful their demands might be.  Yes, even in IETF.
  In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems associated with a proposal, than to withhold such input for fear of seeming rude.   It's even an obligation if the consequences seem important.   Even if you don't believe you have the status necessary to question the judgment of that person.  Even if you might be wrong.  Even if your voice shakes.
 
 Of course, you should try to do that respectfully.  But it's better to be blunt than to not speak up at all.   This is vital. Keith p.s. A colleague expressed this in private mail and I hope he doesn't mind me repeating this here.  It's been reported that Boeing designed the 737MAX stability augmentation firmware to only read one angle-of-attack sensor for each flight, alternating between left-and-right on successive flights.  I hope this report is in error, but for the purpose of this example I'll assume it's accurate.   Of all of the aeronautical engineers which must surely have been involved in the design and review of the 737MAX firmware, it's hard for me to believe that nobody noticed that using the angle-of-attack sensors in this way was actually less reliable than using a single sensor - because the alternating behavior would mask failures and create more opportunities for such failures to result in catastrophe.   I sincerely hope that the culture at Boeing, and every other aircraft manufacturer, is to encourage calling attention to potential safety issues even when, say, this involves calling a superior or more senior person's judgment into question, and there's no penalty for doing so even if one is wrong.  But if the report turns out to be true, I hope a lot of attention is paid to the safety culture at Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers also.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 20:45:49 -0400

On 3/27/19 7:49 PM, Lloyd Wood wrote:

> *"In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems 
> important.   Even if you don't believe you have the status necessary 
> to question the judgment of that person.  Even if you might be wrong.  
> Even if your voice shakes"
>

Everyone has to choose his/her own compromises.   Personally, I wouldn't 
find it a very fulfilling career if it involved helping to break things 
that people use and need.

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 21:38:10 -0400

--On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:49 +0000 Lloyd Wood
<lloyd.wood=[email-masked]> wrote:

> "In IETF, it is MORE IMPORTANT to point out potential problems
> associated with a proposal, than to withhold such input for
> fear of seeming rude.   It's even an obligation if the
> consequences seem important.   Even if you don't believe you
> have the status necessary to question the judgment of that
> person.  Even if you might be wrong.  Even if your voice
> shakes" And even if it completely destroys your subsequent
> career prospects!

Lloyd,

I think you are conflating two different issues and I don't know
whether that is helpful or not.   One of the things I've heard
much more in recent years than I did a decade or more ago --
despite getting to far smaller percentages of meetings -- is
fear that saying something or disagreeing with a particular
position will result in retaliation from "the leadership" or
particular members of it.  Sometimes those fears are expressed
in terms of the IETF (e.g., being blocked from doing anything
that requires leadership (even WG leadership) decisions or
permission) and sometimes it is more general (like having one's
career or career prospects ruined.  Whether the concerns are
legitimate or not, their existence is a threat to the IETF and
its ability to recruit and retrain people and get work done. 

I suggest that a public statement about a zero-tolerance policy
toward such retaliation might be helpful, but probably only if
there were a realistic possibility of its being enforced.  I
have no idea if the ombudsteam would consider evidence of
retaliatory actions to fall within their remit even though a
threat to retaliate almost certainly would.  In theory, the
recall mechanism would be one way to enforce such a policy but
only if people were not too fearful to use it and only if it had
a reasonable chance of being effective within a reasonable
period of time (parts of that issue are the subject of a
different thread on this list).

But none, or almost none, of that has to do with how politely or
impolitely an opinion is expressed or action taken.   

best,
    john

---

From: "Matthew A. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:59:11 +0100

I feel that some take the call to be professional and civil to mean only
missives of positivity are allowed.  That is not what is being asked of
us.  To be blunt -- it's not what You say, it's how You say it.

It is possible to be professional and civil and have a vigorous debate,
and I believe that debate is not just accepted but encouraged.  As a
starting point, consider if the language in use is criticizing the
proposal, or if it's criticizing the person.  Calling an idea bad, or
ugly, or harmful can be acceptable and valid criticisms; calling someone
bad for their idea, or harmful for their idea is not.  Even if someone
continues to bring out bad or harmful ideas, it's more constructive to
argue the merits (or lack thereof) than to point to a person and they
never have good ideas.

This is only a starting point.  Developing some modicum of empathy for
the people in the discussion goes further.  Consider that the vast
majority of us are not in this argument for truly malicious reasons, and
rather try to at least consider where they are coming from.  That
doesn't mean agreeing or accepting their position, but it does mean
acknowledging that is the position they are coming from and it is most
often not to do harm for the sake of doing harm.

In all this, I have deliberately not used the word polite.  I find that
word to be ambiguous; has different meanings for different people -- and
even for different contexts.  Professional and civil, while still vague,
seem to me to have a more common meaning in our global society.

- m&m

Matthew A. Miller
(speaking only as an individual)

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:21:15 +0100

I have quite a bit of experience with flaming and being flamed, both intentionally and unintentionally, and I would like to point out that in fact it is not what you say—it is how you hear what is said to you.

I know this because, having a history of being a flamer, without actually wanting that history, I spent quite a bit of time trying to find ways to say things that did not provoke people, before ultimately realizing that if the person I’m talking to is inclined to be provoked, there is literally nothing I can do to prevent them from taking anything that I say as provoking.

What I have found does work is to provide as little chaff as possible: don’t say anything other than something that is explicitly related to the point you want to get across.   No comments about how the other person is communicating.   No breaking the fourth wall.   Just talk about the topic.   This is a difficult discipline—when we communicate, we almost always have more than one agenda, and it’s difficult at first to notice what is related to making progress in the discussion, and what is, for example, related to wanting to feel heard.

This brings me to the other point, which is why I have a history of being a flamer.   The reason goes back to my childhood, and there’s no real point in digging into that here, but as a result of the context in which I grew up, I learned to assume that pretty much anything anyone ever said to me was an attack.   As a result, to this day I have a tendency to hear perfectly reasonable statements as attacks.   I have to consciously stop and think before I respond, because if I don’t, my knee jerk reaction is often to attack back.

What helps me to avoid getting into this mode is developing relationships.   A person with whom I have a relationship is less likely to trigger this behavior.   Even waiting fifteen minutes before pressing “send” doesn’t really help with this, because I usually feel justified in my responses.   What helps is getting past feeling that the person I’m talking to is an adversary.

I apologize for saying something so touchy-feely, because I know not everybody is comfortable with communication of this type, but the reason I’m saying this is that I think this is a really important problem for the IETF.   If we want to be a place where people feel welcomed, we have to prioritize developing actual relationships with people, where we come to see our friends in the IETF as actual friends, and don’t just come here trying to get our technical needs met.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:31:38 +0000

> us.  To be blunt -- it's not what You say, it's how You say it.
While I agree with everything said here - I like to phrase this as being
like an efficient light bulb, and optimising for light, not heat - there is
in fairness a flip side to this that I think Keith has alluded to.

Postel's Principle applies here - be conservative in what you send, and
liberal in what you receive. Your message covers the sending portion
excellently, but I think it's of equal importance to try to ignore the
inbound heat, and seek only the light - the technical content - in messages.

Yes, of course, one should not be receiving ad-hominem attacks - but I've
found it useful to seek out the technical content (if any) in such messages
rather than reacting (as I've done many, many times before).

This is not intended to be a "blame the victim" message. Bad behaviour is
bad behaviour. But we are all only human, and often the best way to bring a
vigorous debate back to a professional, technical level is to apply the
filter on inbound messages as well as outbound.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:03:08 -0000

Ted,

(I guess I should start with "This is not an attack" :o)

What you have said is only somewhat true.

If you substitute for "flaming" something like "touching inappropriately" or "punching" then you can see how it is not the receiver who is always to blame.

Of course, you also have some very good points that I encourage readers to think about.

A

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:16:19 +0100

> (I guess I should start with "This is not an attack" :o)

Wouldn’t help, but thanks. :)

> Of course, you also have some very good points that I encourage readers to think about.

Sometimes in order to get to the point where one is motivated to take corrective action, one must receive feedback from a moderator or ombudsteam.   I am not suggesting that we must accept every communication that is offered, no matter how unpleasant or ill-intended.   I was addressing the other side of the problem: if you are interested in not being an jerk online, how do you actually accomplish that, and not try and fail over and over again.

Speaking to my own experience, the reason I kept saying things that made matters worse was that I was trying to express myself politely, but still mentally framing the conversation wrong.   No matter how I expressed what I intended to express, it was received as an attack, because my model of the conversation was adversarial.   I still do this, just less often.   It’s a difficult habit to get out of.   When I see the conversation as cooperative, then how polite I am is not a very big issue, because it was never my intention to be impolite—that wasn’t the thing I was doing wrong, although it may in many cases have appeared that way.

What I think is often missed in these discussions is that the person who can clearly be seen as causing the problem can be just as motivated to solve it as the ombudsteam, but without an understanding of how the problem is happening, there is no way for them to solve it.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:10:44 +0100

Thank you for starting a new thread.
I particularly liked:

Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > polite in one culture is rude in another.

...
    > than presume that "politeness" means the same thing to everyone.   It

So let me amend my request.
I would like, as a sometimes WG-chair, and frequent microphone contributor,
specific and directed training on speech patterns and behaviours to avoid
(in technical settings).

(I acknowledge that these probably benefit other areas of my life, and the
list does need to know about my other efforts)

    > exclusively there), that I've become very skeptical of demands for

I would expect training above to highlight such techniques, such that I could
recognize them, identify them, and (politely?) call them out.

I will not repeat the 737MAX discussion, but if it turns out to be true, then
I will be sad.  If anything, some of the challenge at the IETF is that we
have a pretty good safety culture of calling out bad ideas; we just haven't
figured out to do so without killing the conversation.  Sometimes the work
just goes elsewhere, sometimes we just hold our noses. (Megaco comes to mind)

Matthew A. Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I feel that some take the call to be professional and civil to mean
    > only missives of positivity are allowed.  That is not what is being
    > asked of us.  To be blunt -- it's not what You say, it's how You say
    > it.

Keeping this.  Again, I am asking for training on how to say it.

A hallway comment to me was that I might be, in adapting my communication
style, mis-judge the culture who I am communicating with.  That therefore,
it's better that each contributor bring their own IETF-2-local adapter.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)

Ted Lemon wrote:

> This brings me to the other point, which is why I have a history of being a
> flamer.   The reason goes back to my childhood, and there’s no real point in
> digging into that here, but as a result of the context in which I grew up, I
> learned to assume that pretty much anything anyone ever said to me was an
> attack.   As a result, to this day I have a tendency to hear perfectly
> reasonable statements as attacks.   I have to consciously stop and think before
> I respond, because if I don’t, my knee jerk reaction is often to attack back.

> What helps me to avoid getting into this mode is developing relationships.  
> A person with whom I have a relationship is less likely to trigger this
> behavior.   Even waiting fifteen minutes before pressing “send” doesn’t
> really help with this, because I usually feel justified in my responses.   What
> helps is getting past feeling that the person I’m talking to is an adversary.

Relationship development is more difficult for remote participants. But not
impossible. Offlist contact may help. (Or not, as some recent interactions
I've seen on various lists have shown.)

> I apologize for saying something so touchy-feely, because I know not
> everybody is comfortable with communication of this type, but the reason I’m
> saying this is that I think this is a really important problem for the IETF.  
> If we want to be a place where people feel welcomed, we have to prioritize
> developing actual relationships with people, where we come to see our friends
> in the IETF as actual friends, and don’t just come here trying to get our
> technical needs met.

Touchy-feely or not, it's impostant to note that not only do we participate
as individuals, we *are* individials who bring our own backgrounds and
experiences to the party.

And indvidual differences trump cultural assumptions. Just because someone
appears to be associated with a particular culture, or even says outright
that they are, doesn't mean it's a good idea to make assumptions in that
regard. 

				Ned

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:37:29 -0400

Perhaps we might look through a slightly different lens, when talking 
about "culture."  Are we perhaps talking about the wrong kind of 
cultural norms?

Maybe we should be thinking more in terms of professional culture, or 
organizational culture.

Engineering has it's own culture, as does IETF.

In engineering, factuality, critical review, to the point of bluntness, 
generally trumps politeness.  And engineers have never been known for 
social adeptness.

Design reviews, analysis of alternatives meetings, negotiations (e.g., 
over specs, over change orders), can get very adversarial. (As I recall, 
in my days at BBN, we treated design reviews as a competitive sport.  
Great fun.)

Or think about academic presentations - where folks compete to ask hard 
questions, to poke holes in theories & experimental results.  And it all 
pales beside the cultural norms of lawyers, arguing points in a courtroom.

Perhaps, rather than (just) trying to scope IETF norms to those of 
newcomers from different cultures, there should be some expectation that 
newcomers can hold their own in "engineering culture" as it's found in 
multi-national corporate environments.

Just a thought.

Miles Fidelman

On 3/28/19 9:10 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> ....
-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:40:51 +0000

>    I feel that some take the call to be professional and civil to mean only
    missives of positivity are allowed.  
    ...
>  Professional and civil, while still vague,
   
A really nice note; thanks for posting this.

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:52:32 +0000

Michael Richardson wrote:
> So let me amend my request. I would like, as a sometimes WG-chair, and frequent microphone contributor, specific and directed training on speech patterns and behaviours to avoid (in technical settings).
    
[JL] This is an excellent thread, and thank you for starting it! I personally have found both training on recognizing different communication styles and adapting to them (so your message is actually heard/understood rather than only received), as well as cross-cultural communications training, to be quite useful. The former was in the context of leading a technical team and included guidance on how to be a better facilitator of discussion (e.g. technical debate), so I think it's particularly useful for WG chairs - and others as well of course. I certainly always have room to learn and build these skills, so I'd be interested as well if something such as this came together.

PS - I also thought Ted's note was awesome - my hat is off to him for sharing.

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 23:58:54 -0700

Hello folks,

This has been a very interesting thread.  During all of the discussion, 
I haven't seen anyone mention the value of the Golden Rule.  Even if 
sometimes hard to apply, at least it's easy to remember.

- If someone making a presentation has English language issues, imagine 
yourself trying to impart your own insights in their language.

- If someone doesn't know about the technical issues which preclude 
adoption of their technology, imagine how you would like to be informed 
of those issues if you did not know.

- If someone requests time in a WG to present a deck of slides that are 
likely to be a waste of time, reject their request by explaining details 
about why.  Do this in way that makes it clear that you value their 
effort, and that you want to save them the stress of making a failed 
presentation in public.

This is not to devalue training in cultural sensitivity.  But I think 
that using the Golden Rule will go a long way towards solving the 
problems noted in this email thread.  Treat others with the same respect 
with which you want to be treated.  Explain to others the technical 
details that you wish someone would explain to you if you were in their 
shoes.

Even following this simple rule takes daily practice and a lot of 
attention, but it is indispensable.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: sandoche Balakrichenan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 09:08:26 +0100

Thanks Charlie for pointing out the Golden Rule. It seems to be the 
sensible way.

+1

On 29/03/2019 07:58, Charlie Perkins wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> This has been a very interesting thread.  During all of the 
> discussion, I haven't seen anyone mention the value of the Golden 
> Rule.  Even if sometimes hard to apply, at least it's easy to remember.
>
> - If someone making a presentation has English language issues, 
> imagine yourself trying to impart your own insights in their language.
>
> adoption of their technology, imagine how you would like to be 
> informed of those issues if you did not know.
>
> - If someone requests time in a WG to present a deck of slides that 
> are likely to be a waste of time, reject their request by explaining 
> details about why.  Do this in way that makes it clear that you value 
> their effort, and that you want to save them the stress of making a 
> failed presentation in public.
>
> problems noted in this email thread.  Treat others with the same 
> respect with which you want to be treated.  Explain to others the 
> technical details that you wish someone would explain to you if you 
> were in their shoes.
>