RE: discussion style and respect

["Tony Hain" <[e-mail]>]

Michael StJohns 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"?

In the sense that people often believe there can be only one "winner", then
the process is inherently combative. The wars between OSPF & ISIS are a good
example of the combative nature, as well as the wrong-headed thought that
there is only one possible "winner". 

> 
> 2) If my description is not exactly correct (or always correct), how does
reality
> differ from this description?

>From what remains of fading memories, this is a periodic problem primarily
focused around personalities that don't play well with others in the
sandbox. Jim Bound in fatigues in Danvers keeps coming to mind here, but
SNMP was not a quiet timeframe either. 

> 
> 3) If my description is correct, can the process be changed without
changing the
> fundamental nature of the IETF?

To the degree that the IESG tries to drive the mantra "only one approach",
you either have combat over differing ideas or you consider changing the
process to be vote based. When the IESG gets out of the way and allows the
market to decide by publishing all substantive approaches, you can end the
combat fairly quickly (OSPF/ISIS). 


> 
> A few comments in line.
> 
> 
> 
> At 05:41 PM 6/10/2015, Eric Gray wrote:
> >The biggest problem with this approach is that it tends to work more
> >for people who are good at winning arguments, using whatever tactics
> >they choose, over those who are right - on those occasions when the two
are
> not the same.
> 
> 
> So is this a characteristic of the IETF or not?  Never, Sometimes, Always?

Periodically 

> 
> In any event, it's not about who's right, its about what's useful to solve
the
> problem.  Which causes problems when there are many ways to solve the
> problem, each reasonable, and each supported by its own choir.

Most of the time there is a fundamental agreement about what the problem is,
and this is compounded by a disconnect from the operations community. When
JoMan split off and operators started sending vendors to solve their
problems, the actual problem got lost along the way, and the result was a
bias toward what would work best for that vendor's product lines. The IETF
worked best when the operators, researchers, and developers all sat around
the same table and talked about what was needed, possible, and implementable
in a given timeframe. It doesn't work as well without one component of that
set. The "doesn't work as well" aspect gets amplified whenever there is a
winner-takes-all situation, yet none of the proposed solutions solve all
possible problems.

> 
> 
> >Not all bright people are able to overcome an innate introversion to
> >the extent that is required to be successful in a shouting match.
> 
> 
> Counter point:  Not all bright people are able to understand that they are
not
> always the fount of all wisdom and that shouting out their brilliance will
not
> necessarily accomplish what they want to accomplish.  However, the current
> model does deal with this set of behavior reasonably well.

Third point: not all highly opinionated people are as bright as they think
they are (but maybe that is a subset of your point ... ;)

> 
> 
> 
> >And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group while
> >they take their arguments elsewhere.
> 
> This sounds suspiciously like "they'll take their toys and go play
somewhere
> else"?  Which isn't really good behavior for adults IMHO.

Well, some would argue that people who are unwilling to listen to others are
not behaving like adults either. There is plenty of less-than-adult behavior
to point at over time. 


Maybe the Note Well should be updated to have a paragraph about Respect, not
assuming that the other person is attacking you just because they disagree,
... etc. It would at least be a placeholder for a WG chair to point if
behavior starts getting out of hand. As an adjunct, maybe an informational
RFC to the IESG would be helpful. Recognizing that while consensus on the
minimum is a goal, reminding them that "one size does not fit all" seems to
periodically be necessary (https everywhere).

Tony


> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> >Just a thought...
> >--
> >Eric
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:26 PM
> >To: Michael StJohns; IETF Discussion Mailing List
> >Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
> >
> >On 6/10/2015 9:40 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> >> Through "consensus", we include things that are strongly presented,
> >> vigorously defended, said by people with gravitas applicable to the
> >> technology[, technically good], and not shouted down.  It may be that
> >> the style of interaction that you're complaining about is more related
> >> to the "consensus" process than to any other element.   If may be that
> >> if you want to change the confrontational style, you're going to have
> >> to change the way things become standards.
> >
> >
> >In spite of formal voting, some other standards groups either explicitly
or
> implicitly use a unanimity (not 'rough) consensus model.  Still, they do
not
> suffer anything approaching quantity of rude and disrespectful behavior
that we
> tolerate and, arguably, condone.
> >
> >Adult, respectful behavior occurs when it is required.  We don't require
it.
> >
> >Not really.
> >
> >d/
> >
> >ps.  Periodic, generic -- albiet heartfelt -- pleas for better behavior
might be
> necessary, but they have had no effect -- ever -- in almost 30 years.
> >
> >--
> >Dave Crocker
> >Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >bbiw.net
>