Re: discussion style and respect
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Fri, 12 June 2015 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.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 17DA11ABD3F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 qB72cVFfMAPZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4001ABD3C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.115]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id fUrm1q0062VvR6D01UsvLb; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:52:55 +0000
Received: from Mike-T530ssd.comcast.net ([69.255.115.150]) by resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id fUsv1q0033Em2Kp01Usvov; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:52:55 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:52:59 -0400
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
In-Reply-To: <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> <F66440F9-6795-46B6-A4C9-8EFAA4CF79AE@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1434127975; bh=7V6WmoeMwG0TST1m3XrvcpgX23H4Ttv1MStuDzihiO0=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=XwtZ/YMzaew9hrqT61YYTUpw4Gs9Ghoh1PnVihHDYdschuXOo1lZsV4lfKIMu8I6U PP5Kpu/s7pFm7tP9JTxutKnnaM4skAWQrEwacelgbhF9qFWqo/sqCU05ncWB/6RIaP DC6X6lfRH8ENIPSf9nYap6eDSbGEsNxXyDsSg6IR72YU22GHZkXD+RlgBgu9nVLJx+ RqjB0Vt4embZfYVNWjjDbYpesLrNoCFvmwvbNmcLABBq4RxAKuyvnFfe7qOxq9054l tlyhFd2OFVzm4kab7/9kDe+By0vZ0eu/I9oVHzynS2yqz4v3DQvq7s77RD6HYj/ZfM +S4EgLEG/aD8A==
Message-Id: <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QzoAyaHRrqcvEY54n5YJCCSkEGg>
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 16:52:58 -0000
At 07:10 AM 6/12/2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >Let me just say that standards by combat has not been my experience :-) >nor should it be our mode of operation. Hi Jari - I'm violating my own "no bumper stickers" rule I'm afraid with the "standards by combat" tag. :-) Look for T-Shirts soon! But in any number of groups over time I've seen exactly this behavior. Still seeing this. And it doesn't have to be shouting, or loud arguments in front of the mike, sometimes it's as simple as having a clique that wants one thing and presenting good technical arguments against fall in the face of the crowd of supporters for that one thing. An overwhelming numerical advantage and "standards by combat" suggests that your opponent will cede the field. Of course, there are our Don Quixote's and they will continue to tilt at windmills even when common sense would suggest they won't win. >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. Blaming on the people is one approach - but .... There's an old children's instructional tale about cutting a cake in a manner to prevent argument: One child cuts the cake, the other selects the piece. This is an example of a system that works in spite of (or maybe because of) the selfishness of the participants. My - let's not call it a theory, but an emerging hypothesis - is that the consensus process tends to incentivize confrontational approaches, especially when the difference between winning and losing may have real world implications for the participants in the form of compensation, recognition, product acceptance etc. The WG chairs can mitigate this somewhat, but in some cases the chairs are as much the problem as anything else in that their biases and goals favor one "side" or another. It's hard to have a WG chair who is completely impartial, but I don't know that that's a goal we should be pursuing. My fondest desire would be to have a system that works in spite of (or because of) human nature regardless of the participant set and mostly gets the "right" answer for some definition of right. I'm not opposed in principle to the current process, except that I think more "wrong" decisions are tending to creep in and I think it's related to the consensus process in some form. I have no objective measures for "right", "wrong" and their relationship to the current process. Unfortunately, neither does the IETF as a whole. The paragraph immediately above is at best a feeling and at worst a premonition.... [Side note here - sorry: A lot of this discussion has been of the form "what's good for our participants", when I think it needs to at least as much about "what's good for the IETF production of good technical standards". The former is important, but more important - to me at least - are quality standards. If we can do the latter while considering the former, I'm all for it, but if we do the former and ignore the latter, I think we're doing ourselves a big disservice.] Mike
- 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