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: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