Subject: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt

From: nalini elkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 10:17:52 +0700

All,

This is the problem statement on consensus building and conflict resolution
that Henning and I have been working on.  I spoke about this at the Plenary
yesterday.

There will be a companion document on solutions.   Please let us know any
thoughts you have.  I think it is best to define the problems quite clearly
before moving to solutions.

Thanks,
Nalini

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:13 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
To: Nalini Elkins <[email-masked]>, Henning Schulzrinne <
[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Nalini Elkins and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-elkschul-conflict-problem
Revision:       00
Title:          Conflict Resolution within a Working Group: Problem
Statement
Document date:  2018-11-08
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          11
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elkschul-conflict
-problem-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkschul-conflict-pr
oblem/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem
-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-elkschul-confli
ct-problem

Abstract:
   At the IETF, we currently use a set of methods to communicate a point
   of view, to solicit input, to resolve conflict and attempt to obtain
   consensus within the group.  These methods include: writing an
   Internet Draft, discussion on email lists, discussion at face-to-
   face, interim or virtual meetings, and design teams.  At times, these
   methods fall short.  People become entrenched in their positions.  A
   Working Group may be split 80-20 or 70-30 for a prolonged period.
   This wastes time and energy and may have a lasting impact.  This
   document discusses the benefits and drawbacks of each of the current
   methods of communication focusing solely on their efficacy at
   conflict resolution.   A companion document will propose some
   solutions including alternative methods of conflict resolution.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 10:30:36 +0700

I don't think this approach is cutting to the heart of the problem.   Part
of the problem we have with mailing list discussions is that people are
actually typically not following a discussion methodology that has any hope
of converging.   The reasons you've proposed for why convergence doesn't
occur are real reasons, but we actually know how to address the
problem—RFC7282 does a good job of exploring this issue.

Your discussion about writing internet drafts kind of misses the point.
 The reason for writing Internet drafts is that they provide a thing that
can be incrementally changed, and the changes to which can be tracked.
 Effectively, they provide a locus for consensus building.   This is
something that mailing list discussions do not do, because there is a
tendency for participants to follow methodologies, such as repeated
assertion, which do not actually converge, because they don't tend to take
into account the opinions of those who disagree.

So what might be useful would be to explicitly talk about this problem,
give advice for how participants can do better in mailing list discussions,
and provide suggestions for when and how to move from a discussion to a
document, and how to capture the points of disagreement in the document
successfully (rather than arguing over which points to include and which to
exclude, which is typical).

Another thing that is extremely problematic about this document is the
reference to percentages of participants who hold one position or another.
 This is a non-sequitur, and a very dangerous one.   The IETF is not an
organization with members who vote.   Rough consensus is never determined
(or at least should never be determined) on the basis of the number of
people in the room.   RFC7282 does a great job if explaining how we should
actually do it.

I think it's likely that if you proceed with this document on the path
you've currently taken, it will muddy the waters rather than providing
clarity.   I would encourage you to take a more practical approach to the
issue, and in particular to deliberately base your work on the previous
work done in RFC7282.

Alternatively, if you actually disagree with RFC 7282, it would be good to
say so explicitly and then try to explore the nature of your disagreement;
otherwise this document will be an example of contradiction rather than of
analysis and synthesis.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:18 AM nalini elkins <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> All,
>
> This is the problem statement on consensus building and conflict
> resolution that Henning and I have been working on.  I spoke about this at
> the Plenary yesterday.
>
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-elkschul-conflict-problem
>
>
> Abstract:
>    solutions including alternative methods of conflict resolution..
>
>
>
>
> 103attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees
>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:59:44 +0000

I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the current IETF meeting is most definitely *not* the best place.

I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it were made explicit.

---

From: nalini elkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:00:21 +0700

> I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
current IETF meeting is most

> definitely **not** the best place.

How about the IETF-discuss list?  Any suggestions?

> I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of “rough
consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it were made
explicit.

I am not sure how that is coming about.  I really did not have any
intention of repudiating "rough consensus".  Just pointing out some places
where it does not work well.  I am actually confused about why people are
reading it this way.

Nalini

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
> current IETF meeting is most definitely **not** the best place.
>
>
>
> I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of “rough
> consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it were made
> explicit.
>
>
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:02:25 +0700

Nalini, "pointing out some places where it does not work well" is
repudiating it.   The places you're pointing out are not places where rough
consensus doesn't work well.   They are how rough consensus is reached (or
not reached).   Not getting consensus is a valid outcome of a process.   If
every process were required to reach consensus, we would publish a lot of
mistakes.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:00 PM nalini elkins <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of
> “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it
> were made explicit.
>
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:08:01 +0700

For clarification, is your point that "rough consensus" does not work 
well in some circumstances, or that our techniques for arriving at / 
determining the rough consensus can be improved in some cases?

Yours,
joel

On 11/8/18 3:00 PM, nalini elkins wrote:
> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending 
> the current IETF meeting is most
> 
>  > definitely **not** the best place.____
> 
> 
> __
> __
> intention of repudiating "rough consensus".  Just pointing out some 
> places where it does not work well.  I am actually confused about why 
> people are reading it this way.
> 
> 
> Nalini
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I
>     am pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are
>     attending the current IETF meeting is most definitely **not** the
>     best place.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served
>     if it were made explicit.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Nalini Elkins
> President
> www.e-dco.com <http://www.e-dco.com>
> 
> 
>

---

From: nalini elkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:09:57 +0700

> "pointing out some places where it does not work well" is repudiating
it.   The places you're pointing out are not places where rough consensus
doesn't work well.   They
> are how rough consensus is reached (or not reached).   Not getting
consensus is a valid outcome of a process.   If every process were required
to reach consensus, we
> would publish a lot of mistakes.

OK.  I see what the issue is.   What I mean to say is that the process of
rough consensus leaves hard feelings and there is likely a way to do it
better.   We will give possible solutions in the next draft.   I am not
against rough consensus.

I have also been talking to various people who are / have been WG chairs
about how they do things and how they have seen things play out in
reality.

But, I think we should have this discussion on the IETF list.  I will move
the discussion to there.

Nalini

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:59:11 +0000

Thank you for your explanation about your views on rough consensus, and for moving the discussion.