Re: discussion style and respect

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14/06/2015 01:19, John C Klensin wrote:

<snip>
>...   However, if a WG is
> started with a "solution" and a group of people behind it, there
> are some bad effects:
> 
> (i) Attempts to challenge or change that "solution" can easily
> cause belligerent encounters.  From the standpoint of those who
> created the solution, they have already done the work, reached
> agreement, and possibly even deployed that solution.  Proposed
> changes (at least ones of any significance) look to them like
> either unnecessary delays and a waste of time or like attacks.

Yes, and this is certainly a very real situation. I've personally
experienced it in the past, and am currently experiencing it
(without belligerence, fortunately).

It calls for an open mind, a good understanding of the sunk cost
fallacy, and consciously neutral chairing.

> If those proposals come to the WG, those making them are often
> made to feel uncomfortable enough (or hopeless enough about
> their efforts) that they go away, resulting in consensus by
> attrition.  

Yes; again, the chairs have to look out for people with alternative
proposals who are not being heard.

> If they should up on IETF Last Call, we sometimes
> end up with unpleasantness on the IETF list, very bad feelings,
> or both.  

Indeed. The very term "last call" sets that up. By then, it's
really too late to avoid a mess.

Regards
   Brian