Re: discussion style and respect

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 A939D1AC39F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 lfZainoEhTOV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 063CE1AC3A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2353; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434009023; x=1435218623; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=HhECG5qz/FYDncTwu1nFdvqjydyVyv82BRj1axLucqc=; b=gntUJy51Qe/b1TSKFffZPrq9ee4337UM8dZ9QMZ30khVeXTL/t/+Xv/6 igQtQFLnhXWU/D8ad0EFrWhYxhAxiOLboi0XALd1VCtajX5NcjNlZWp0j oCnjiOGJNAaYE+d+MeIrPwr+8aIeYZq2vE+lbLWMnLRtFU7JdYZbeUmcm M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C3BAAKOnlV/xbLJq1chEODHsIXAoIAAQEBAQEBgQuEIgEBAQECASNVARALDgoJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEFAgEBiBYDCgiucp5NCIVVAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBARqLQ4UGB4JogUUBBJVsgUqHUoEwhmOMEYNbJIIKHIFUPDGCRwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,593,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="514775298"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2015 07:50:20 +0000
Received: from [10.61.220.101] ([10.61.220.101]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5B7oKFM017955; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:50:20 GMT
Message-ID: <55793DBB.9010508@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:50:19 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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> <1798EE63-68EF-491F-A4EB-4B55ED0359EF@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1798EE63-68EF-491F-A4EB-4B55ED0359EF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="97BaThTobQhEOW3J9oHH52hL2HwTmLKWV"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Hhw6r8lo45yB0G_1yFTxPkDhJ5s>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:50:24 -0000

Hi Yoav,

On 6/11/15 7:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> 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.

Eliot