Re: discussion style and respect

Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:28:24 +0200



    Alia,

    
    That's a lot of good stuff, and I really appreciate your thoughtful
    answer, and especially your rolling up your sleaves and addressing
    these sorts of problems.  As I wrote, we all have a responsibility
    to call out bad behavior.  Senior members of the community, ADs, IAB
    members and WG chairs certainly should set an example in assisting
    chairs when things get out of control.  That is- we can't place all
    the weight on WG chairs.

    
    Eliot

    
    On 6/11/15 9:44 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:

    
      Hi Eliot,

        
          On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:50 AM,
            Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

            Hi
              Yoav,

              
                On 6/11/15 7:46 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.

                
              That's exactly what I witnessed.  I am ashamed to
              say that I did not

              myself say something more at the time (although I was in a
              very awkward

              position to do so).

              
                >

                > 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.

                
              It's also up to us as individuals to call out bad
              behavior, and for all

              of us to recognize that just because something is said
              more than once

              doesn't make it any more true (or false).  And so, my
              challenge to the

              leadership: how shall we address this problem?  I'd like
              to at least

              know that the problem is recognized.

            
            One aspect is to work on improving and discussing how
              to handle consensus issues for the WG Chairs.
            Anyone who hasn't read through RFC 7282 really should. 
              In the Routing area, we've been having 
            periodic Working Group chair training sessions.  You
              can see the presentation and recording for the one
            we did "On Consensus" at:  http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/WGChairTraining
              .
            We recently did one about "Civility in the Working
              Group" also to address how to handle bad behavior.
            

            It helps to have thought through scenarios before hand
              and have some plans on how to handle it.
            It can also be useful to discuss issues with those who
              are not involved.  In Routing, we try to have a
            safe place for WG Chairs to do so with periodic WG
              Chair chats.
            

            Those of us who participate in the IETF consider some
              values core to the culture which enables successful
            and relevant work.  Currently, those values are
              partially articulated in the Tao, but we do not stand up
              and
            applaud those who are doing good work or illustrating
              those values.   For instance, on the consensus concerns,
            in today's telechat was a webrtc draft that had a very
              contentious and extended effort to pick a
              mandatory-to-implement
            codec.  As described in the write-up, Adam Roach came
              up with a compromise position (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html)
              that was able to resolve the conflict.
            

            At the heart of the IETF, we do open, consensus-based
              engineering standards.  To me, that means that we
            have to be effective listeners willing to hear ideas
              from all participants.  To me that means we need to
              consider
            concerns based upon their technical and operational
              merit - not on how many times or how emphatically they
            are stated.   To me, that means that we develop
              standards that can be usefully deployed and are aware of
              the
            operational considerations and technical considerations
              that drive a solution.
            

            I would like to see the IETF continue to improve in
              being a supportive community where there are ties of
              friendship and trust to help bridge differences in
              technical opinion and perspective.   
            

            Regards,
            Alia
          
          
Attachment:
signature.asc

Description: OpenPGP digital signature