On 14/06/2015 01:19, John C Klensin wrote: <snip> >... However, if a WG is > started with a "solution" and a group of people behind it, there > are some bad effects: > > (i) Attempts to challenge or change that "solution" can easily > cause belligerent encounters. From the standpoint of those who > created the solution, they have already done the work, reached > agreement, and possibly even deployed that solution. Proposed > changes (at least ones of any significance) look to them like > either unnecessary delays and a waste of time or like attacks. Yes, and this is certainly a very real situation. I've personally experienced it in the past, and am currently experiencing it (without belligerence, fortunately). It calls for an open mind, a good understanding of the sunk cost fallacy, and consciously neutral chairing. > If those proposals come to the WG, those making them are often > made to feel uncomfortable enough (or hopeless enough about > their efforts) that they go away, resulting in consensus by > attrition. Yes; again, the chairs have to look out for people with alternative proposals who are not being heard. > If they should up on IETF Last Call, we sometimes > end up with unpleasantness on the IETF list, very bad feelings, > or both. Indeed. The very term "last call" sets that up. By then, it's really too late to avoid a mess. Regards Brian