Re: discussion style and respect

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Eliot,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Alia,
>
> That's a lot of good stuff, and I really appreciate your thoughtful
> answer, and especially your rolling up your sleaves and addressing these
> sorts of problems.  As I wrote, we all have a responsibility to call out
> bad behavior.  Senior members of the community, ADs, IAB members and WG
> chairs certainly should set an example in assisting chairs when things get
> out of control.  That is- we can't place all the weight on WG chairs.
>

Thanks & I absolutely agree.  It's our community and organization and we
need to do the work to both call out bad behavior AND to call out and
praise good behavior as being praiseworthy.  I'm sure that we've all dealt
with culture issues in organizations - and if we want the IETF to have a
good culture that reflects values that help make it a productive and
enjoyable place to get work done, then it's up to us to encourage and
reinforce that.

Regards,
Alia


> Eliot
>
>
> On 6/11/15 9:44 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yoav,
>>
>> On 6/11/15 7:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
>> 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”?
>> > Perhaps. But the best tactic for winning this kind of combat in the
>> IETF is not to shout louder than others. The best tactic is to get a small
>> group around you (preferably not all from the same company), insist on your
>> position and refuse to budge. Then wait it out until your opponents grow
>> tired and walk away.
>>
>> That's exactly what I witnessed.  I am ashamed to say that I did not
>> myself say something more at the time (although I was in a very awkward
>> position to do so).
>>
>> >
>> > It is up to chairs to prevent this kind of outcome. I mean, we think of
>> tenacity as a good quality but it shouldn’t override all others. One way is
>> to encourage reaching consensus quickly. Long discussions tend to favor the
>> tenacious.
>>
>> It's also up to us as individuals to call out bad behavior, and for all
>> of us to recognize that just because something is said more than once
>> doesn't make it any more true (or false).  And so, my challenge to the
>> leadership: how shall we address this problem?  I'd like to at least
>> know that the problem is recognized.
>>
>
>  One aspect is to work on improving and discussing how to handle
> consensus issues for the WG Chairs.
> Anyone who hasn't read through RFC 7282 really should.  In the Routing
> area, we've been having
> periodic Working Group chair training sessions.  You can see the
> presentation and recording for the one
> we did "On Consensus" at:
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/WGChairTraining .
> We recently did one about "Civility in the Working Group" also to address
> how to handle bad behavior.
>
>  It helps to have thought through scenarios before hand and have some
> plans on how to handle it.
> It can also be useful to discuss issues with those who are not involved.
> In Routing, we try to have a
> safe place for WG Chairs to do so with periodic WG Chair chats.
>
>  Those of us who participate in the IETF consider some values core to the
> culture which enables successful
> and relevant work.  Currently, those values are partially articulated in
> the Tao, but we do not stand up and
> applaud those who are doing good work or illustrating those values.   For
> instance, on the consensus concerns,
> in today's telechat was a webrtc draft that had a very contentious and
> extended effort to pick a mandatory-to-implement
> codec.  As described in the write-up, Adam Roach came up with a compromise
> position (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html) that
> was able to resolve the conflict.
>
>  At the heart of the IETF, we do open, consensus-based engineering
> standards.  To me, that means that we
> have to be effective listeners willing to hear ideas from all
> participants.  To me that means we need to consider
> concerns based upon their technical and operational merit - not on how
> many times or how emphatically they
> are stated.   To me, that means that we develop standards that can be
> usefully deployed and are aware of the
> operational considerations and technical considerations that drive a
> solution.
>
>  I would like to see the IETF continue to improve in being a supportive
> community where there are ties of friendship and trust to help bridge
> differences in technical opinion and perspective.
>
>  Regards,
> Alia
>
>
>