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
- 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