Subject: [Gendispatch] on the response of gendispatch chairs to Dan Harkins email

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:32:53 -0400

Ok, I read Dan Harkins email of 13 October once again and in less haste 
than last time.

His email could be worded better, to seem more like criticism of the 
document and less like personal criticism.   But I do not find it 
inappropriate.  Rather, I find the chairs' actions concerning for 
multiple reasons.

Most of Dan's email could be interpreted, and I believe should be 
interpreted, as criticism of the draft-knodel document.   Where Dan's 
email borders on personal criticism, I don't find it inappropriate given 
the history and context of this discussion. Yes, Dan's email could be 
accused of straying into ridicule ("I'm sorry, have lives been 
threatened?") and even insult ("This is magical thinking.  It's unhinged 
from reality.")   But his criticism is still about the document and the 
logic that really does appear to be behind it.   Slight differences in 
wording in Dan's email might have created a bit more light and a bit 
less heat, but in my judgment probably not by much.  And there's 
absolutely nothing wrong with his questioning the reasoning behind 
draft-knodel.  And this discussion is in the context of a document that 
was originally arguably insulting to IETF participants and in violation 
of its conduct guidelines.  On balance, I don't think Dan's response was 
anywhere nearly as far out-of-line as the original document, and I don't 
see why Dan's email should be subjected to pushback when draft-knodel 
seems to have been actively encouraged by the WG chairs and/or IETF 
leadership.

----

I think WG chairs now find themselves in a conflicting position whenever 
there's enough heat around a discussion to cause tempers to flare.  
Fundamentally the chairs should be there to ensure fairness - that all 
well-informed views are able to be presented, that the process is 
followed, that any declared consensus (or lack thereof) is visible and 
therefore uncontroversial.  But chairs are also expected to push back on 
abusive input from participants. Done properly, this serves the same 
purpose of making sure that all well-informed views can be presented.

But visibility is essential.   When the chairs take it upon themselves 
to privately push back on participants who in the chairs' judgment have 
spoken inappropriately, this creates multiple problems.   One is that 
this can (and in the past has been) a way for chairs to put their thumbs 
on the scale, to bias the discussion in a way that discourages a 
participant from contributing their point of view, and more generally 
have a chilling effect on group discussion.   Particularly with 
controversial topics, it's easy for chairs (even those who are sincerely 
dedicated to IETF's principles of consensus and openness), to let their 
own biases color their judgment about what is or is not appropriate speech.

When such pushback is done publicly, there is a chance for other 
participants to observe the chairs' actions and call them out (or 
appeal) if they believe the chairs have acted unfairly.   This 
transparency thus provides some protection to the community against 
inappropriate biases on the part of chairpersons.   But when the 
pushback is done privately, it not only unfairly biases against the 
participants whom the chairs have criticized, it also encourages 
distrust in the IETF process.

Also, if the chairs are sending warnings as required by disciplinary 
process, in response to a participant's speech, when more serious 
disciplinary action might result in the future from similar speech, 
those warnings should be clearly labeled as process messages.   They 
should include specific references to the supposedly-offending speech 
and the rules which are allegedly violated by such speech.   It's much 
better for such warnings to be clear, than for them to be ambiguous.   
Such a warning should not appear friendly and informal when it's 
actually a shot over the participant's head.   Participants need a clear 
understanding of where the process facilitators believe the boundaries 
are, both so they can observe them, but also so they can challenge them.

I'm not saying that it's never appropriate for chairs to send informal 
private feedback, but such informal private feedback should not be 
considered part of a disciplinary process and should probably be used 
only rarely.

And making such feedback public has the effect of "raising the bar" for 
such feedback, since the chairs don't want to seem petty in public.   
And that in turn requires a somewhat greater tolerance for heated speech 
and controversy on the part of group participants than might otherwise 
be the case.  This, IMO, is a Good Thing.

----

Back to thumbs on the scale.   The chairs (and IETF management also, I 
believe) gave draft-knodel an airing despite arguably abusive content in 
that document.  I don't fault them for that - I'm not a big fan of prior 
restraint - but I do think it was inappropriate of the chairs to push 
back on multiple people for criticizing that document even though the 
criticisms seemed less offensive and less in violation of IETF conduct 
guidelines than the document itself.

So yeah, I think the chairs acted inappropriately, and I hope they see 
fit to retract their pushback.

Keith