Re: discussion style and respect

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 5727F1B2A21 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 2reOj80En9WI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (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 194461B2A20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacyx8 with SMTP id yx8so28252519pac.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bxcM/KB7+UC2wuYfAQo0bBtNwtKMMsUGoeYHeCsh/Ao=; b=Zzgxj++gROVFiRak0q0YsQFKi5JKT5FrdD6Cpws4Ce/bhTUNJhXarWLEnfBOrZCRoP Gi95xKH9H38qfq54N4DAjX5NhnpmRShLSEIdcBZ1EsPN+AALMlSY9QS/DV0IgbYpFtBR tugMwxFlEjJvODIrSSDa3JhNkuO38FkS6BOdo6Yi3G13kVFvU/4rkTCz/vDHK5TY9kAu 86SUYf2E66k26eIDjDTqgQx3o1sV/A9liTfyy2xi6qDiZvtYeTdz0VlUNXMVBDNbyM37 MXvgtby4rWTqTG6yqmwVMD6ji0j5VcmF59TNpYUwckPY0wGvHqUtCva3jRIqvtXcL1LK 5hsg==
X-Received: by 10.69.10.196 with SMTP id ec4mr26139390pbd.69.1434139688817; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4118:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4118:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kh6sm4458204pbc.50.2015.06.12.13.08.05 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <557B3C30.602@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:08:16 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF <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> <CAMm+Lwi5=TfVd26QOx6THXCKsRrgKpi9rHdST5WQZ=Ayzw+sMA@mail.gmail.com> <557A27C5.8030600@gmail.com> <F66440F9-6795-46B6-A4C9-8EFAA4CF79AE@piuha.net> <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dG5GIBpin5AIZ3W_XlmK5TX2I4c>
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 20:08:10 -0000

Mike,
On 13/06/2015 04:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> 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.   

I snipped this out of context to bring up another point we haven't really
focussed on: all this talk of winning and losing. My emerging hypothesis is
that treating a standards discussion as a zero-sum game, with winners and
losers, is a fundamental mistake that we all tend to make. We should always
be looking for a win-win. Probably the most important thing that ADs and
WG chairs could do to make our discussions more courteous is to remind
everybody of this whenever necessary.

I have a secondary hypothesis that the nature of the rough consensus
process makes people a bit more likely to behav as if they are in a zero-sum
game, but that is secondary and hard to prove.

     Brian