a strong +1 to this summary.
Best regards, Tobias
On 12/06/15 13:10, Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me just say that ‘standards by combat’ has not been my experience :-)
nor should it be our mode of operation.
Mike is completely right about 'strongly presented, vigorously defended,
by people with gravitas applicable to the technology’. And about our
consensus mode of operation. These are how we should be.
But it does not follow that aggressive argumentation or a war of ideas
is what we should be doing. Granted, there are always some people in any
organisation who want that sort of thing… egos… techies… need to
show superiority… cases of busy or poor management… social skills…
online discussion forums… people who thrive on creating controversy.
I started this thread because I saw two incidents, and I didn’t like them.
My overall experience is that those are still exceptions. My typical
experience in working on some topic is that the successes or my
personal gratification does not come through winning the other guy.
The most wonderful experience is when you find others with the
same issues and ideas, and you together build something that is
better than what you could have done alone. And that through several
people wanting the same thing, you have something that the market
wants, and it actually takes off. I see so many cases of that...
So I would like to agree with Melinda and others on the consensus
process being best as highly collaborative. The suggestion to re-read
Pete’s rough consensus document RFC 7282 from Alia is a really
good one. +1 also on real world being our criteria of success (Harald).
And +1 to what Eliot said WG chairs and senior members of the
community leading the way.
Jari