Discussion style and respect
ietf.org
Discussion style and respect
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Discussion style and respect
#2I think some people get so combative because their identity is wrapped up in being right. It's unfortunate, given our capacity to collaborate and build, that we still struggle with these scuffs.
I think if you want respectful discourse, it has to be part of the culture of the community; where behavior is enforced at a group level, more than an administrative or rule based.
There will always be a range of people involved, and even the best of people have bad days; coupled with the fact that most people usually mean well, I've found it's best to cut people some slack if you have the chance.
Re: Discussion style and respect
#3What's the context? Which discussion was particularly heated?
Re: Discussion style and respect
#4What's the context? Which discussion was particularly heated?
Probably multiple, but this one certainly seems to qualify.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h...
"TLS everywhere is great for large companies with a financial stake in Internet centralization. It is even better for those providing identity services and TLS-outsourcing via CDNs. It's a shame that the IETF has been abused in this way"
Looks like a very unprofessional and offensive attribution of motive, which completely fails to keep the conversation on a constructive course.
P.S. Nice to see someone's trying to bury this. It's exactly the kind of thing the OP talks about, provided in direct response to a question. How could that possibly be worth a non-partisan downvote?
Re: Discussion style and respect
#5What's the context? Which discussion was particularly heated?
Probably multiple, but this one certainly seems to qualify. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... "TLS everywhere is great for large companies with a financial stake in Internet centralization. It is even better for those providing identity services and TLS-outsourcing via CDNs. It's a shame that the IETF has been abused in this way" Looks like a very unprofessional and offensive attribution…
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h...
This post seems like reasonable criticism to me. It doesn't attack any individual.
It's fair to attribute motive for a particular agenda. The discussion would not be complete without considering conflict-of-interest motivations of the participants.
It also seems fair to say that Google and other companies with the goal of Internet centralization have been pushing this, and that this is one of the likely motivations for them.
It also seems fair to point out, in a technical way, that HTTPS-everywhere is not capable of achieving the goals that its proponents claim it will, and that it is more likely to be harmful to those goals.
The last sentence that you quote is perhaps unhelpful but the "rough consensus" decision-making model of the IETF creates a perfect situation for lobbyists from large companies to control the agenda. This can be seen as an abuse.
Edited to add: I would be very concerned if the chair of the IETF was seeking to quash discussion of this type. That would only prove there is a serious problem.
Re: Discussion style and respect
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably multiple, but this one certainly seems to qualify. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... "TLS everywhere is great for large companies with a financial stake in Internet centralization. It is even better for those providing identity services and TLS-outsourcing via CDNs. It's a shame that the IETF has been abused in this way" Looks like a very unprofessional and offensive attribution…
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... This post seems like reasonable criticism to me. It doesn't attack any individual. It's fair to attribute motive for a particular agenda. The discussion would not be complete without considering conflict-of-interest motivations of the participants. It also seems fair to say that Google and other companies with the goal of Internet centralization have b…
I agree, in fact the author seemed to go out of their way to explain everything.
Re: Discussion style and respect
#7I think some people get so combative because their identity is wrapped up in being right. It's unfortunate, given our capacity to collaborate and build, that we still struggle with these scuffs. I think if you want respectful discourse, it has to be part of the culture of the community; where behavior is enforced at a group level, more than an administrative or rule based. There will always be a range of people invol…
>>I think some people get so combative because their identity is wrapped up in being right. It's unfortunate, given our capacity to collaborate and build, that we still struggle with these scuffs.
Unfortunately, that is very typical of Western (USA/Europe) nerds as they always claim to be right. I cannot make that claim for nerds of Asia.
Re: Discussion style and respect
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably multiple, but this one certainly seems to qualify. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... "TLS everywhere is great for large companies with a financial stake in Internet centralization. It is even better for those providing identity services and TLS-outsourcing via CDNs. It's a shame that the IETF has been abused in this way" Looks like a very unprofessional and offensive attribution…
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... This post seems like reasonable criticism to me. It doesn't attack any individual. It's fair to attribute motive for a particular agenda. The discussion would not be complete without considering conflict-of-interest motivations of the participants. It also seems fair to say that Google and other companies with the goal of Internet centralization have b…
No. Attribution of motive is never helpful or appropriate as part of a supposedly-technical discussion. If it were, then maybe someone should also mention Fielding's own interest in enabling insertion of ads by proxies. But no, that's exactly the kind of thing the IETF chair's message was trying to address, for all parties involved. If there's a problem with lobbying and conflicts of interest, that needs to be taken up at an organizational level, not as part of the technical debate.
In any case, whether you think that kind of behavior is appropriate or not is kind of irrelevant. That wasn't the question. The question was what motivated the IETF chair's message. Can anyone deny that the hostility and accusatory tone of a message that has been splattered all over the internet today might be part of that motivation?
Re: Discussion style and respect
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably multiple, but this one certainly seems to qualify. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... "TLS everywhere is great for large companies with a financial stake in Internet centralization. It is even better for those providing identity services and TLS-outsourcing via CDNs. It's a shame that the IETF has been abused in this way" Looks like a very unprofessional and offensive attribution…
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg93416.h... This post seems like reasonable criticism to me. It doesn't attack any individual. It's fair to attribute motive for a particular agenda. The discussion would not be complete without considering conflict-of-interest motivations of the participants. It also seems fair to say that Google and other companies with the goal of Internet centralization have b…
"I would be very concerned if the chair of the IETF was seeking to quash discussion of this type."
Is it trying to quash the discussion, or merely move it to an appropriate (and more effective) forum?
"That would only prove there is a serious problem."
Only if you accept Fielding's attribution of motive, which is a bit circular. What if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Fielding himself is the bad actor here? Would this still prove there's a serious problem, or would it be addressing a problem? See how it all depends on which assumptions you start with? That's why allowing stuff like this into a supposedly rational debate is so problematic. Do you think it would be useful for anyone to make assumptions about your agenda*? People need to stick to the facts, not try to paint anybody who disagrees with them as thralls to some evil agenda.
Re: Discussion style and respect
#10The phenomena addressed in that mail are very common. There isn't an organisation in the world that couldn't use those remonstrances from time to time. We're all just human.