Jari Arkko wrote: > "Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged > to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are > thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling others > their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find > a common ground.” > > I’ve never heard of this particular technique before, have > other people run into it? Any experiences? Any more detailed > information? The reason that I’m asking is that it kind of sounds > like the way people should be voicing their opinions in an IETF > discussion, when that discussion is run in an optimal way. > Along with our rough consensus concepts, of course, and > drive to understand other people's positions. I thought we were doing that -- chairs are eliciting these red lines by asking questions like "who can live with XXX", "who cannot accept YYY", ... The main observation remains: where there is contention, progress is often not made in plenaries (translate: WG meetings), but in small focus meetings (the real bar BOFs, or other ad-hoc/hallway meetings). We do occasionally make progress in WG meetings, but these are also a great place for bullying and decisions based on social proof (as opposed to technical considerations). All that said, I still hope we are doing less "negotiation" than was needed in Le Bourget, and focusing more on technical considerations. Hope dies last... Grüße, Carsten