Re: discussion style and respect
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sat, 13 June 2015 10:21 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 89AB51B2FC9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 03:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 fPznIAPa8uaT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 03:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016871B2FC3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 03:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 7EA65C94C3; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:21:54 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
Message-ID: <20150613102154.GH23916@verdi>
References: <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578AB4F.3020406@dcrocker.net> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632D561D2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMm+Lwi5=TfVd26QOx6THXCKsRrgKpi9rHdST5WQZ=Ayzw+sMA@mail.gmail.com> <557A27C5.8030600@gmail.com> <F66440F9-6795-46B6-A4C9-8EFAA4CF79AE@piuha.net> <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com> <557B3C30.602@gmail.com> <132d01d0a580$427d28c0$c7777a40$@tndh.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <132d01d0a580$427d28c0$c7777a40$@tndh.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0lrF0ZR7chnppG-4CMY54PZ12fc>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:21:58 -0000
Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote: > > If people disagree about the requirements to start with, it is very > hard to get consensus about any proposed solution. Let me get back to that... > It becomes a zero-sum when it is a beauty contest or competing > implementation biased "one size fits all" outcome. Almost inevitably, by the time we have enough folks to form a WG, there is a potential "solution" nearing completion. In fact, more often than not we don't form the WG before it's complete. Many folks say that our "successful" WGs are those where the solution exists before we start... > Remove the "one-size-fits-all", or otherwise constrain the requirements > to a set with consensus (yes that means more requirements documents), > and you reduce the chance of a zero-sum outcome. Constraining the requirements is likely the secret. But human nature goes the other way. Folks with a "solution" honestly believe everything it does belongs in "requirements". Folks without a solution (yet) propose "wish-list" requirements. It's _so_ easy to just throw them all into the document. But _this_ is the time when it's easiest to put areas of contention out-of-scope. So I must disagree with Tony: if people disagree about requirements early on, it's the perfect time to work out how to constrain them. > Insist on "one-size-fits-all", or skip the requirements document, and > you almost ensure a zero-sum fight. There are _many_ cases (in our history) without a requirements document; yet we managed quite nicely to constrain the requirements, simply by agreeing that once we had something "good enough for a start," we should publish it and move on. So I don't worry about "skipping the requirements document" -- I worry about putting too much in it. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.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