Jari Arkko wrote:
"Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged
to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are
thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling others
their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find
a common ground.”
I’ve never heard of this particular technique before, have
other people run into it? Any experiences? Any more detailed
information? The reason that I’m asking is that it kind of sounds
like the way people should be voicing their opinions in an IETF
discussion, when that discussion is run in an optimal way.
Along with our rough consensus concepts, of course, and
drive to understand other people's positions.
I thought we were doing that -- chairs are eliciting these red lines by
asking questions like "who can live with XXX", "who cannot accept YYY", ...
The main observation remains: where there is contention, progress is
often not made in plenaries (translate: WG meetings), but in small focus
meetings (the real bar BOFs, or other ad-hoc/hallway meetings). We do
occasionally make progress in WG meetings, but these are also a great
place for bullying and decisions based on social proof (as opposed to
technical considerations).
All that said, I still hope we are doing less "negotiation" than was
needed in Le Bourget, and focusing more on technical considerations.
Hope dies last...
Grüße, Carsten