Re: discussion style and respect
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 02:23 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 08FA61A8A41 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 DAHFe_6gN5O9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x241.google.com (mail-pa0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA251A8A3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pablj1 with SMTP id lj1so13140999pab.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/nvkFQa9JxgbEduVS5PJwBJHK4Smv2uVD8gV0/bmtIA=; b=0DOMNVXVwNfOqj3FfDRrj9L0LBjcQ4inDGRH4wwhkgLCGLVB9O10LKMuuNr0TADgCS x7Su7qbGsUCn6bwwGphWkaO6fTVUJzddn750Ek/krHoAKmnV91jfgaDKNIuZrB1jE1HZ Ks9nwWpJ/Aa4HSpWFgPXiok4yvmNoITbSLsf8pt6fPtohtnQglK3lKbfBNlTiNUjTclj RlIC+JVG0HQKVykWXDYSYxq9kQYbDjRZx6pFY45edtc9YQo/6DN5soEo8vmxU3Y3cBsJ 8++CMa6JvD1GxPQlUAPwQyWlcg05pJpl69WcwSdGCa4x7mAzdwJEJG5flkmnX7JMCkLz 2dlg==
X-Received: by 10.68.197.39 with SMTP id ir7mr10581037pbc.87.1433989377454; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:572f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:572f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ob15sm9800614pdb.40.2015.06.10.19.22.54 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5578F103.6080305@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:22:59 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
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> <5578BEB9.1020201@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <5578BEB9.1020201@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0i0P_MMkRTI-wKaHsgkES-M7Rz0>
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 02:23:00 -0000
On 11/06/2015 10:48, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > > On 6/10/15 5:58 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> Let me try this again. >> >> 1) Is my description of the IETF process reasonably close to reality? >> E.g. does the consensus process contribute to "Standardization by >> Combat"? > > Sometimes. Not Always. I think, specifically, that our rough consensus process is not conducive to compromise between alternatives, whereas "voting (consensus preferred)" does tend to lead to compromises. By "compromises" I mean things like the ATM cell's payload size being the arithmetic mean of 32 and 64, or the OSI Network Layer having two incompatible protocols. So it may be a feature, not a bug, that our process discourages compromise. When we have to choose between distinct alternatives, the next point applies: >> >> 2) If my description is not exactly correct (or always correct), how >> does reality differ from this description? > > From where I sit, the difference lies in how the chairs manage the process when things get rough. Exactly. And things can get rough quickly and unexpectedly. >> >> 3) If my description is correct, can the process be changed without >> changing the fundamental nature of the IETF? > > There may well be ways to improve the process. Pete Resnick's efforts to clarify what we mean by rough consensus are probably > an (unfortunately necessary) step towards such improvements. True, but things can get very heated way before there is any real question of a consensus call. This isn't at all easy for WG Chairs to control, especially between meetings. Brian > > Yours, > Joel > >> >> A few comments in line. >> >> >> >> At 05:41 PM 6/10/2015, Eric Gray wrote: >>> The biggest problem with this approach is that it tends to work >>> more for people who are good at winning arguments, using whatever >>> tactics they choose, over those who are right - on those occasions >>> when the two are not the same. >> >> >> So is this a characteristic of the IETF or not? Never, Sometimes, >> Always? >> >> In any event, it's not about who's right, its about what's useful to >> solve the problem. Which causes problems when there are many ways to >> solve the problem, each reasonable, and each supported by its own >> choir. >> >> >>> Not all bright people are able to overcome an innate introversion >>> to the extent that is required to be successful in a shouting >>> match. >> >> >> Counter point: Not all bright people are able to understand that >> they are not always the fount of all wisdom and that shouting out >> their brilliance will not necessarily accomplish what they want to >> accomplish. However, the current model does deal with this set of >> behavior reasonably well. >> >> >> >>> And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group >>> while they take their arguments elsewhere. >> >> This sounds suspiciously like "they'll take their toys and go play >> somewhere else"? Which isn't really good behavior for adults IMHO. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>> Just a thought... -- Eric >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: ietf >>> [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: >>> Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:26 PM To: Michael StJohns; IETF >>> Discussion Mailing List Subject: Re: discussion style and respect >>> >>> On 6/10/2015 9:40 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>> Through "consensus", we include things that are strongly >>>> presented, vigorously defended, said by people with gravitas >>>> applicable to the technology[, technically good], and not shouted >>>> down. It may be that the style of interaction that you're >>>> complaining about is more related to the "consensus" process than >>>> to any other element. If may be that if you want to change the >>>> confrontational style, you're going to have to change the way >>>> things become standards. >>> >>> >>> In spite of formal voting, some other standards groups either >>> explicitly or implicitly use a unanimity (not 'rough) consensus >>> model. Still, they do not suffer anything approaching quantity of >>> rude and disrespectful behavior that we tolerate and, arguably, >>> condone. >>> >>> Adult, respectful behavior occurs when it is required. We don't >>> require it. >>> >>> Not really. >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> ps. Periodic, generic -- albiet heartfelt -- pleas for better >>> behavior might be necessary, but they have had no effect -- ever -- >>> in almost 30 years. >>> >>> -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net >> >> >> > >
- discussion style and respect IETF Chair
- Re: discussion style and respect Michael StJohns
- Re: discussion style and respect Michael StJohns
- Re: discussion style and respect Dave Crocker
- Re: discussion style and respect Joel M. Halpern
- RE: discussion style and respect Eric Gray
- RE: discussion style and respect Michael StJohns
- Re: discussion style and respect Melinda Shore
- Re: discussion style and respect Joel M. Halpern
- Re: discussion style and respect John C Klensin
- Re: discussion style and respect Brian E Carpenter
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- Re: discussion style and respect Nico Williams
- RE: discussion style and respect Tony Hain
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- RE: discussion style and respect Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: discussion style and respect Eliot Lear
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- Re: discussion style and respect Eliot Lear
- Re: discussion style and respect Yoav Nir
- Re: discussion style and respect Harald Alvestrand
- Re: discussion style and respect Eliot Lear
- Re: discussion style and respect Tim Chown
- Re: discussion style and respect Yoav Nir
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- Re: discussion style and respect Hector Santos
- Re: discussion style and respect Alia Atlas
- Re: discussion style and respect Melinda Shore
- Re: discussion style and respect Eliot Lear
- Re: discussion style and respect Alia Atlas
- Re: discussion style and respect Alia Atlas
- Re: discussion style and respect Brian E Carpenter
- Re: discussion style and respect Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: discussion style and respect Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: discussion style and respect Doug Royer
- Re: discussion style and respect Larry Masinter
- Re: discussion style and respect Doug Royer
- Re: discussion style and respect Dave Crocker
- Re: discussion style and respect Jari Arkko
- Re: discussion style and respect Ted Lemon
- Re: discussion style and respect John C Klensin
- Re: discussion style and respect Michael StJohns
- Re: discussion style and respect Brian E Carpenter
- RE: discussion style and respect Tony Hain
- Re: discussion style and respect John Leslie
- Re: discussion style and respect John C Klensin
- Re: discussion style and respect Dave Crocker
- RE: discussion style and respect Tony Hain
- Re: discussion style and respect John C Klensin
- Re: discussion style and respect Brian E Carpenter
- Re: discussion style and respect Melinda Shore
- Re: discussion style and respect Joel M. Halpern
- Re: discussion style and respect Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: discussion style and respect hallam
- Re: discussion style and respect jmh.direct
- Re: discussion style and respect hallam
- RE: discussion style and respect Tony Hain
- Re: discussion style and respect Tobias Gondrom
- Re: discussion style and respect t.p.
- Re: discussion style and respect Dan Harkins