Re: discussion style and respect
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 13 June 2015 13:19 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 E7AAE1A878E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 gm0kqWtGD24K for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 062BC1A8781 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Z3lL7-000LqV-EU; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:19:13 -0400
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:19:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
Message-ID: <54BFB0E8D227E8EEF55AF353@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150613102154.GH23916@verdi>
References: <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> <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com> <557B3C30.602@gmail.com> <132d01d0a580$427d28c0$c7777a40$@tndh.net> <20150613102154.GH23916@verdi>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RnzjLyEVZbDo00BHAj-FA9LihbQ>
Cc: 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: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 13:19:25 -0000
--On Saturday, June 13, 2015 06:21 -0400 John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote: >... >> It becomes a zero-sum when it is a beauty contest or competing >> implementation biased "one size fits all" outcome. > > Almost inevitably, by the time we have enough folks to form > a WG, there is a potential "solution" nearing completion. In > fact, more often than not we don't form the WG before it's > complete. Many folks say that our "successful" WGs are those > where the solution exists before we start... And that becomes another part of the problem. Historically, the IETF was an engineering organization that [also] produced standards. It is not a coincidence that "standard" or equivalent do not appear in our name. In part because of that history, we used to take the position that WGs were supposed to add value to a spec and that making IETF endorsement (often called "rubber-stampling") of a spec had little value and was mostly to be avoided. For better or worse, and as John Levine points out, things have evolved. Many WGs are formed only when someone (or some group) have a fairly complete solution in mind. The tendency in the last several years to drag out the WG-forming process so that it takes six months to a year or more reinforces that trend toward WGs that start with a solution (I applaud IESG efforts to more more toward a model of starting WGs, evaluating progress, and shutting things down that don't make it, rather than chartering only those that are certain of success). 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. 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. If they should up on IETF Last Call, we sometimes end up with unpleasantness on the IETF list, very bad feelings, or both. I agree with Ted that appeals are part of the solution and we don't have nearly enough of them, but, again, too many people see appeals in "we have already got a solution" scenarios as time-wasting attacks rather than a key part of making the consensus process work. (ii) Many other SDOs are mostly in the business of tuning and approving specifications, rather than doing the fundamental development work. When they do development, it is very often about revisions and often suffers from bad cases of second (or third) system effects with the resulting lousy technology. However, their processes are focused on approval mechanisms and making sure that they go correctly. We are not as good at that because our procedures, and much of our self-image, is still based around engineering with standards as a byproduct rather than approval and standardization. The difference creates friction points that may lead to uncomfortable discussion styles. > So I must disagree with Tony: if people disagree about > requirements early on, it's the perfect time to work out how > to constrain them. Yes, but only if there is basic agreement about success criteria. We often invoke statements like "make the Internet work better" but they require a certain level of altruism. As soon as "promote my solution because I'm certain it is correct (or will make me or my organization lots of money)" or similar things become the primary success criteria for more than a very few people, it becomes harder to agree on when one has been successful and we have at least an approximation to Tony's zero-sum game... and, sadly, might benefit from procedures that are better designed to detect and resist narrow goals and success criteria. >... >> Insist on "one-size-fits-all", or skip the requirements >> document, and you almost ensure a zero-sum fight. > > There are _many_ cases (in our history) without a > requirements document; yet we managed quite nicely to > constrain the requirements, simply by agreeing that once we > had something "good enough for a start," we should publish it > and move on. I think that works well only when either there is clear intent to treat that "start" as a tentative or experimental document with "moving on" involving a review and revision step that would likely make changes, perhaps incompatible ones, in the light of experience. That is fairly close to how we originally defined Proposed Standard and reflects cultural assumptions that are much more common in engineering organizations than in organizations that are primarily standards bodies. >... best, john
- 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