When our process goes bad in the ways we're currently discussing, it's "consensus by last man standing" - the process of driving away all the others may involve insults, tenaciousness or just a huge amount of patience (and funding). The result is a specification that some people ignore because it's a stupid spec, and some people ignore because it's a result of a process they walked away from. This may be harmful to adoption. When our process works well, the results are adopted in the Real World - that's our *real* definition of success. On 06/11/2015 07:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Let me try this again. >> >> 1) Is my description of the IETF process reasonably close to reality? E.g. does the consensus process contribute to "Standardization by Combat”? > Perhaps. But the best tactic for winning this kind of combat in the IETF is not to shout louder than others. The best tactic is to get a small group around you (preferably not all from the same company), insist on your position and refuse to budge. Then wait it out until your opponents grow tired and walk away. > > It is up to chairs to prevent this kind of outcome. I mean, we think of tenacity as a good quality but it shouldn’t override all others. One way is to encourage reaching consensus quickly. Long discussions tend to favor the tenacious. > > Yoav > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.