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.
Not all bright people are able to overcome an innate introversion to the extent
that
is required to be successful in a shouting match.
And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group while they
take
their arguments elsewhere.
Just a thought...
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] 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