Hi Eliot,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Yoav,
On 6/11/15 7:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
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”?
Perhaps. But the best tactic for winning this kind of combat in the IETF
is not to shout louder than others. The best tactic is to get a small group
around you (preferably not all from the same company), insist on your
position and refuse to budge. Then wait it out until your opponents grow
tired and walk away.
That's exactly what I witnessed. I am ashamed to say that I did not
myself say something more at the time (although I was in a very awkward
position to do so).
It is up to chairs to prevent this kind of outcome. I mean, we think of
tenacity as a good quality but it shouldn’t override all others. One way is
to encourage reaching consensus quickly. Long discussions tend to favor the
tenacious.
It's also up to us as individuals to call out bad behavior, and for all
of us to recognize that just because something is said more than once
doesn't make it any more true (or false). And so, my challenge to the
leadership: how shall we address this problem? I'd like to at least
know that the problem is recognized.
One aspect is to work on improving and discussing how to handle consensus
issues for the WG Chairs.
Anyone who hasn't read through RFC 7282 really should. In the Routing
area, we've been having
periodic Working Group chair training sessions. You can see the
presentation and recording for the one
we did "On Consensus" at:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/WGChairTraining .
We recently did one about "Civility in the Working Group" also to address
how to handle bad behavior.
It helps to have thought through scenarios before hand and have some plans
on how to handle it.
It can also be useful to discuss issues with those who are not involved.
In Routing, we try to have a
safe place for WG Chairs to do so with periodic WG Chair chats.
Those of us who participate in the IETF consider some values core to the
culture which enables successful
and relevant work. Currently, those values are partially articulated in
the Tao, but we do not stand up and
applaud those who are doing good work or illustrating those values. For
instance, on the consensus concerns,
in today's telechat was a webrtc draft that had a very contentious and
extended effort to pick a mandatory-to-implement
codec. As described in the write-up, Adam Roach came up with a compromise
position (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html)
that was able to resolve the conflict.
At the heart of the IETF, we do open, consensus-based engineering
standards. To me, that means that we
have to be effective listeners willing to hear ideas from all
participants. To me that means we need to consider
concerns based upon their technical and operational merit - not on how many
times or how emphatically they
are stated. To me, that means that we develop standards that can be
usefully deployed and are aware of the
operational considerations and technical considerations that drive a
solution.
I would like to see the IETF continue to improve in being a supportive
community where there are ties of friendship and trust to help bridge
differences in technical opinion and perspective.
Regards,
Alia