Re: discussion style and respect

On 11/06/2015 10:48, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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.
I think, specifically, that our rough consensus process is not conducive
to compromise between alternatives, whereas "voting (consensus preferred)"
does tend to lead to compromises. By "compromises" I mean things like
the ATM cell's payload size being the arithmetic mean of 32 and 64,
or the OSI Network Layer having two incompatible protocols. So it may
be a feature, not a bug, that our process discourages compromise.

When we have to choose between distinct alternatives, the next point
applies:

> > 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.
Exactly. And things can get rough quickly and unexpectedly.

> > 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.
True, but things can get very heated way before there is any real
question of a consensus call. This isn't at all easy for WG Chairs
to control, especially between meetings.

    Brian
> 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: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