I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome
of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent.
I think that Carl has fallen into an old rhetorical trap here. If the rules of
a forum prohibit an accusation that you want to introduce the way to bypass it
is to make a statement that is tantamount to the accusation but not the
accusation. Then you wait for someone to allege that you have crossed the line,
thus making the statement.
So please, if you see a repeated implication don't take the trouble to clarify
it. The terms of civil debate have loopholes for good reason. I am just reading
a report of a government official (I won't say which country) who has very
clearly and deliberately lied, making a claim of a trend in a series of
statistics that have clearly been deliberately (and clumsily) manipulated.
There is a repeated implication here that someone wants to become a martyr, why
oblige?
Incidentally the implication that someone has lied is not ad-hominem. I have
spent quite a bit of time thinking about ad-hominem arguments since a common
criticism of trust systems and moderation systems is that they are essentially
based on ad-hominem reasoning. The term has to be used with precision and there
is a side condition that is not normally recognized.
It is possibly slander but not ad-hominem which is a logical fallacy of the
form: A argues B, A is a bad person, therefore B is false. So an ad-hominem
attack would be 'Todd Glassey believes that the NOMCON process needs reform,
Todd Glassey is despicable, therefore there is no reason to change the NOMCON'.
In the case of the government official the implication that they have lied is
an inescapable conclusion drawn from undisputed facts. Nor is an argument of
the form 'A has lied', 'A is a member of government B', therefore 'Government B
is untrustworthy'.
An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value of B is
independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth value of B is in
fact dependent on the character of A there is no fallacy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Malamud [mailto:carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:57 PM
To: Theodore Tso
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Hi Ted -
I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment.
But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard.
1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has
lied to the IETF. That is an ad hominen attack and goes well
beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list.
2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process
works, they should do what we did when the system was put in
place: write a document and get consensus. The IETF is all
about running code, and that includes "business processes."
An I-D is the first step.
Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up
policy on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of
writing an
I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list.
3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge,
and other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify
as reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated
purpose of this mailing list.
I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to
take more active steps to keep discussion on the general
mailing list on track. At the very least, discussants should
be actively enouraged to move their discourse to more
specialized mailing lists.
Regards,
Carl
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but
your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member
is what is
not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is
irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to
drive a Mack truck through.
Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the
IESG (they
aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same
time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this
thread have
clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were
acting in
good faith, and that no harm was done.
You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and
strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility.
So if you
do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works,
being a bit
more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to
probably serve
your goals better than your current style of attacking people like
Brian and other IESG members.
Regards,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf