On 14/06/2015 01:19, John C Klensin wrote:
<snip>
... However, if a WG is
started with a "solution" and a group of people behind it, there
are some bad effects:
(i) Attempts to challenge or change that "solution" can easily
cause belligerent encounters. From the standpoint of those who
created the solution, they have already done the work, reached
agreement, and possibly even deployed that solution. Proposed
changes (at least ones of any significance) look to them like
either unnecessary delays and a waste of time or like attacks.
Yes, and this is certainly a very real situation. I've personally
experienced it in the past, and am currently experiencing it
(without belligerence, fortunately).
It calls for an open mind, a good understanding of the sunk cost
fallacy, and consciously neutral chairing.
If those proposals come to the WG, those making them are often
made to feel uncomfortable enough (or hopeless enough about
their efforts) that they go away, resulting in consensus by
attrition.
Yes; again, the chairs have to look out for people with alternative
proposals who are not being heard.
If they should up on IETF Last Call, we sometimes
end up with unpleasantness on the IETF list, very bad feelings,
or both.
Indeed. The very term "last call" sets that up. By then, it's
really too late to avoid a mess.
Regards
Brian