RE: discussion style and respect

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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"?

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

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

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?  

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.


>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.



>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.

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