Re: discussion style and respect

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

a strong +1 to this summary.
Best regards, Tobias


On 12/06/15 13:10, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Let me just say that ‘standards by combat’ has not been my experience :-)
> nor should it be our mode of operation.
>
> Mike is completely right about 'strongly presented, vigorously defended,
> by people with gravitas applicable to the technology’. And about our
> consensus mode of operation. These are how we should be.
>
> But it does not follow that aggressive argumentation or a war of ideas
> is what we should be doing. Granted, there are always some people in any
> organisation who want that sort of thing… egos… techies… need to
> show superiority… cases of busy or poor management… social skills…
> online discussion forums… people who thrive on creating controversy.
>
> I started this thread because I saw two incidents, and I didn’t like them.
> My overall experience is that those are still exceptions. My typical
> experience in working on some topic is that the successes or my
> personal gratification does not come through winning the other guy.
> The most wonderful experience is when you find others with the
> same issues and ideas, and you together build something that is
> better than what you could have done alone. And that through several
> people wanting the same thing, you have something that the market
> wants, and it actually takes off. I see so many cases of that...
>
> So I would like to agree with Melinda and others on the consensus
> process being best as highly collaborative. The suggestion to re-read
> Pete’s rough consensus document RFC 7282 from Alia is a really
> good one.  +1 also on real world being our criteria of success (Harald).
> And +1 to what Eliot said WG chairs and senior members of the
> community leading the way.
>
> Jari
>