Re: discussion style and respect

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

On 6/10/15 5:58 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"?

Sometimes.  Not Always.

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

 From where I sit, the difference lies in how the chairs manage the 
process when things get rough.

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

There may well be ways to improve the process.  Pete Resnick's efforts 
to clarify what we mean by rough consensus are probably an 
(unfortunately necessary) step towards such improvements.

Yours,
Joel

>
> 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
>
>
>