On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> In theory we have a consensus based organization. In practice we have
> a system where it is rather easy for some people to take strategic
> offense as a tactic to shut down debate.
'Establishing (rough) consensus' is, at its root, Sophistic debate.
To be complete: The IETF system relies upon those presenting drafts
to be judged as having consensus to progress, or not. It is not
required (by either the draft authors or the audience) to provide
proof outside of convincing the judges - those who measure and form
consensus - about whether or not to progress a draft (this does not
mean that people do not supply proof, it merely is not required; one
only needs to be convincing, and certainly proof can be very
convincing). Of course Sophists was more in the realm of determining
the truth or falsehood of a given statement, but the boolean nature of
true and false tracks well with the IETF's boolean nature of 'progress
or not,' and this system of consensus suffuses both draft progression
and the debate of draft contents.
It should therefore not be surprising that all manner of classical
Sophist rhetoric is used by the IETF's volunteers to their own ends,
successfully.
Although today we may have a negative stereotype of Sophism, I think
collectively we believe there can be no other way (than Sophistic
debate) for the IETF to pursue its agenda on the basis that we often
argue issues that simply cannot be fully explained or brought into
evidence, and even more frequently enter into the realm of politics
(and what place would logic have there?).
I was very dissatisfied with the IETF's performance towards its agenda
until this occurred to me. It would have helped me immensely if it
were formally identified in this way (but then that would require the
IETF carry a 'Philosophy Area'), and to some extent I imagine that
this is also the problem some of the IETF's more vocal detractors are
wrestling with; the belief that the IETF does or should follow a
Socratic, Aristotelian, or even Democratic methodology, and the
resulting confusion and hurt feelings to discover that blatantly
Sophist rhetoric has succeeded where their deductions or even
elections have failed.
And yes, claiming that some person or ideaology is beyond reproach
("the end to end principle", the collective phrasology of John Postel)
is a valid, if unfortunate, Sophist technique to convince.
--
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpFH7WYsqsp6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf