Re: discussion style and respect
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 12 June 2015 11:10 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 75FC11A89C6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:10:23 -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 9dfJJgOmXn7W for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84D21A9048 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBF32CEDB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:10:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ix8FU8-CgW-E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:10:18 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F422CEB5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:10:18 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EA5149D-0A02-405A-A54F-8195D3AD354E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <557A27C5.8030600@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:10:17 +0300
Message-Id: <F66440F9-6795-46B6-A4C9-8EFAA4CF79AE@piuha.net>
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> <CAMm+Lwi5=TfVd26QOx6THXCKsRrgKpi9rHdST5WQZ=Ayzw+sMA@mail.gmail.com> <557A27C5.8030600@gmail.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6pkP2klc-VhweRpjHleSnU2zKn4>
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:10:23 -0000
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
- 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