IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: discussion style and respect

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8EA1A8AD6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wX9BF66-Mxhj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E9161A01F2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04BE9DA008B; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:54:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.180] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:54:47 -0700
References: <3BF40BF3-B7EB-4571-BD7B-D394D4F0CB6C@ietf.org> <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578AB4F.3020406@dcrocker.net> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632D561D2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F776CE5E-FE84-479A-A61D-20E5D27BC7B1@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:54:44 -0400
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-PtahNUYKNVtMrRCWw9TzChrq0o>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:54:55 -0000

On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1) Is my description of the IETF process reasonably close to reality?  E.g. does the consensus process contribute to "Standardization by Combat"?

No.   It makes it difficult for people to get what they want without winning on the merits, at least in principle, and the desire to get what we want without winning on the merits is what leads to this combativeness you are referring to. 

> 3) If my description is correct, can the process be changed without changing the fundamental nature of the IETF?

I would argue that the current move in the direction of less combative discourse is a fundamental change to how the IETF works, and it is a good change.  The fact that combative discourse ever produces an outcome that rewards those who engage in it is a very serious process failure.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email