On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
There's also a common tendency of some kinds of groups to categorically
dismiss the opinions of those that they see as outliers, even to the point
of diminishing their numbers. If one of those objecting happens to defend
his viewpoint vigorously and to respond to numerous attacks on not only his
viewpoint but also his legitimacy, motivation, character, etc., there is a
tendency among some to dismiss his opinions even more.
All of these clearly happened in recent discussions in v6ops.
It's certainly true that one lone speaker should not be able to deny rough
consensus to a group. That's why the consensus only has to be "rough".
But if the group doesn't even try to understand a minority view, it cannot
be said to have tried to reach consensus of any kind.
Quite contrary imho if you want to speak of 6to4-to-historic in specific. The
viewpoint most effusively expressed by yourself is quite well understood.
Lack of reconciliation does not imply that it was simply swept under the rug.
I have recently received several private emails that indicated that particular
speakers did not understand it, though we were usually able to sort out the
differences in private conversation.
I certainly don't claim that my concerns were swept under the rug by the WG
management. But in a group is largely composed of individuals with a
particular point-of-view, it can be difficult for members of that group to see
the merit in the opinion of a minority, or lone speaker, with a different
point-of-view. Those who want to categorically dismiss that minority viewpoint
will get plenty of support from other members in the group.
To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many
people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a
filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of
opinion ("agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity,
solidarity; formal concord") coupled with listening carefully to those who
disagree and determining whether their arguments actually make sense and
point up an issue. I will recognize a single person's point at issue if it
appears that they are not being listened to or their issue dealt with. If
they are simply hammering a point, and their point is incorrect, I will
note that they have been hammering an incorrect point ("even though you are
sending one email in four in a long thread and are expressing extreme
concern about a draft because it does ____, I will overlook your objections
because it doesn't do that.") and move on.
I'd agree with that logic. Though I note that "incorrect" is sometimes
I'd go a little further. It is trivially possible to establish two opposing
positions neither of which are "wrong".
Ietf mailing list