The biggest problem with this approach is that it tends to work more for people who are good at winning arguments, using whatever tactics they choose, over those who are right - on those occasions when the two are not the same. Not all bright people are able to overcome an innate introversion to the extent that is required to be successful in a shouting match. And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group while they take their arguments elsewhere. Just a thought... -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:26 PM To: Michael StJohns; IETF Discussion Mailing List Subject: Re: discussion style and respect On 6/10/2015 9:40 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Through "consensus", we include things that are strongly presented, > vigorously defended, said by people with gravitas applicable to the > technology[, technically good], and not shouted down. It may be that > the style of interaction that you're complaining about is more related > to the "consensus" process than to any other element. If may be that > if you want to change the confrontational style, you're going to have > to change the way things become standards. In spite of formal voting, some other standards groups either explicitly or implicitly use a unanimity (not 'rough) consensus model. Still, they do not suffer anything approaching quantity of rude and disrespectful behavior that we tolerate and, arguably, condone. Adult, respectful behavior occurs when it is required. We don't require it. Not really. d/ ps. Periodic, generic -- albiet heartfelt -- pleas for better behavior might be necessary, but they have had no effect -- ever -- in almost 30 years. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net