Re: discussion style and respect

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 7E04F1A874D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KShTvqzUqltV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398731A874B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so46197135pdb.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XEpvw2XvLyH4/TOReasPb0gMfylFPB94ARpIfVRB8x0=; b=I3f2Rzbr1opnmlzJ4h1cehrtrcYqszjkh+PAWlyig9OAtJUJKFd8w/whEUJY9Q8lta WFg4NGcupLy0aXRryjr4C5/kpRG3y3pi+RlBa9xjRu/nu7Swj+/tdL/9ig+Doq5XW35H VgGBmuXetSGVtDhAOuLzp2V5StsPBft9h+zpBg35q5JiIgqTJOS0+Ul9rFLlRkjvPK+j gfkV0UbD2dqxQTn61ACU8baQEAZ38N08lw9O7qLEHT2KIBDTxeJ4xCaU2hd06ytMSX5Q 7BJLmzZxdoznmucHubTWHK/R78KA+GE927FXBcjBQIGUeaNYyBn5PA3xmmMekmNq+F8F W4Vg==
X-Received: by 10.68.69.39 with SMTP id b7mr9459807pbu.35.1433976359921; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (209-112-214-203-rb1.nwc.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [209.112.214.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm9573110pdi.16.2015.06.10.15.45.58 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5578BE25.1080409@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:45:57 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_0WBvzmzGR5jkXLIulV7nQvCCzo>
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:46:01 -0000

On 6/10/15 1:58 PM, 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 theory it should not - consensus processes, done well,
are highly collaborative.  There's not really room for
one side winning and all other sides losing.  That said,
we typically do consensus very poorly.  It probably is the
case that we often do standardization by combat, but that's
because of who we are and how we manage our processes even
though it's basically antithetical to consensus decision-making.

I think it comes down to a few things: 1) bad chairing, 2)
we do a bad job socializing new participants, and 3) a
lot of our participants aren't willing to concede any
points.  The third issue is, I think, a combination of
our poor work socialization new participants and a lot
of newer participants having employment incentives around
"winning" at standards work.

Melinda