Re: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt

I don't think this approach is cutting to the heart of the problem.   Part
of the problem we have with mailing list discussions is that people are
actually typically not following a discussion methodology that has any hope
of converging.   The reasons you've proposed for why convergence doesn't
occur are real reasons, but we actually know how to address the
problem—RFC7282 does a good job of exploring this issue.

Your discussion about writing internet drafts kind of misses the point.
 The reason for writing Internet drafts is that they provide a thing that
can be incrementally changed, and the changes to which can be tracked.
 Effectively, they provide a locus for consensus building.   This is
something that mailing list discussions do not do, because there is a
tendency for participants to follow methodologies, such as repeated
assertion, which do not actually converge, because they don't tend to take
into account the opinions of those who disagree.

So what might be useful would be to explicitly talk about this problem,
give advice for how participants can do better in mailing list discussions,
and provide suggestions for when and how to move from a discussion to a
document, and how to capture the points of disagreement in the document
successfully (rather than arguing over which points to include and which to
exclude, which is typical).

Another thing that is extremely problematic about this document is the
reference to percentages of participants who hold one position or another.
 This is a non-sequitur, and a very dangerous one.   The IETF is not an
organization with members who vote.   Rough consensus is never determined
(or at least should never be determined) on the basis of the number of
people in the room.   RFC7282 does a great job if explaining how we should
actually do it.

I think it's likely that if you proceed with this document on the path
you've currently taken, it will muddy the waters rather than providing
clarity.   I would encourage you to take a more practical approach to the
issue, and in particular to deliberately base your work on the previous
work done in RFC7282.

Alternatively, if you actually disagree with RFC 7282, it would be good to
say so explicitly and then try to explore the nature of your disagreement;
otherwise this document will be an example of contradiction rather than of
analysis and synthesis.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:18 AM nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
> This is the problem statement on consensus building and conflict
> resolution that Henning and I have been working on.  I spoke about this at
> the Plenary yesterday.
>
> There will be a companion document on solutions.   Please let us know any
> thoughts you have.  I think it is best to define the problems quite clearly
> before moving to solutions.
>
> Thanks,
> Nalini
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:13 AM
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
> To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>, Henning Schulzrinne <
> hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Nalini Elkins and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-elkschul-conflict-problem
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Conflict Resolution within a Working Group: Problem
> Statement
> Document date:  2018-11-08
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          11
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem
>
>
> Abstract:
>    At the IETF, we currently use a set of methods to communicate a point
>    of view, to solicit input, to resolve conflict and attempt to obtain
>    consensus within the group.  These methods include: writing an
>    Internet Draft, discussion on email lists, discussion at face-to-
>    face, interim or virtual meetings, and design teams.  At times, these
>    methods fall short.  People become entrenched in their positions.  A
>    Working Group may be split 80-20 or 70-30 for a prolonged period.
>    This wastes time and energy and may have a lasting impact.  This
>    document discusses the benefits and drawbacks of each of the current
>    methods of communication focusing solely on their efficacy at
>    conflict resolution.   A companion document will propose some
>    solutions including alternative methods of conflict resolution..
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Nalini Elkins
> President
> Enterprise Data Center Operators
> www.e-dco.com
>
> --
> 103attendees mailing list
> 103attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees
>