--On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 16:40 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Side comment - my thoughts on behavior. Almost every other
> technical standards body in the world has voting at either the
> individual, organization or country level with respect to
> whether or not a particular element, thought, scheme or device
> gets standardized. We do not. 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
>...
Mike,
An observation that is a little bit orthogonal to your remarks
but that may also contribute enough to the behavior patterns
people are noticing to be worth recording....
Almost every other technical standards body in the world also
has an admissions and/or application procedure of some sort,
usually including organizational or governmental endorsement of
the applications and sign-off on the associated conditions.
Those procedures are expected to guarantee a certain level of
ability to simulate adult behavior as well as at least some
minimal level of expertise in the subject matter. They also
establish some level of accountability: if someone misbehaves,
they can be kicked out (not merely, e.g., prevented from posting
to a mailing list or three for a while) and, whether explicitly
or merely by reputation, the sponsoring organizing can be
negatively impacted.
For better or worse, the IETF has no equivalent form of
accountability, or mechanism (effective or not) for filtering to
distinguish between people with knowledge and experience in a
particular area and those who merely have strong opinions. In
other bodies, the filtering arrangements tend to favor a certain
level of orthodoxy in proposals and standards relative to
introduction of new ideas.
The IETF model of insisting that anyone can participate and that
everyone who does participate does so strictly as an individual
tends to avoid that orthodoxy and associated constraints but
also avoids the advantages of enforceable rules, e.g., that one
either behaves like an adult professional or gets out (or
doesn't get in).
I'm not persuaded that our model of reaching consensus is
necessary to being open to innovative ideas, but there is almost
certainly some interaction. At the same time, if we develop our
own forms of orthodoxy (as we often seem to be doing of late)
and enforce them through out decision-making processes, we end
up with one of the major liabilities of most of those other
standards bodies without the obvious advantages.
best,
john