Subject: Re: Question for the list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:15:25 -0400

I too wondered if it was something we the chairs had said.  I privately 
asked a participant if they thought the lack of traffic on the list was 
due in some part to something we had said.  They assured me that was not 
the case - but you are correct.  It is something to consider.  I like all 
the approaches that have been recommended.  Some we have done - some not. 
So, I have some fuel to go with.  Again, thanks to the list for the 
support! 

Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked] 
06/12/02 17:59 
        
        To:        [email-masked], [email-masked] 
        cc:         
        Subject:        Re: Question for the list

At 5:02 PM -0400 6/12/02, [email-masked] wrote:

Generally, when there is a "situation" my approach is to send a 
message that reminds the list (or class) what the ground rules for 
communication are.  Important to this message is a short mention of 
why the message is being sent at the time.

It is important to be very specific regarding the problem, the rules 
for use of the forum, and the end goal of the discussion.  It is also 
important to do this in a very santizied manner, not referring in any 
way to any of the sources of the "irritation," and especially no 
sarcastic or "tongue-in-cheek" reference to what has preceeded the 
message.

To get folks to "clean up their act" you have to distill the problem 
and explain it so all can see the foolishness that is happening. 
This must also be done in a way that makes no one "lose face" and 
shut down their willingness to participate in a healthy manner.

One thing I also do is a self-examination to see if I (as chair, 
teacher, etc.) can be blamed for the degeneration of the discussion. 
Sometimes a large volume of "nasty" messages is a result of the 
sender's losing faith in the process and those who "govern" the 
discussion.  Whether we feel that we are hands-on or hands-off the 
mailing lists, there are always participants that believe the chair 
"rules."

If non-constructive arguments persist, I look to see if perhaps there 
is something wrong with the topic of the argument itself.  It sounds 
like the offending organization values being "competitive" over 
reaching an interoperable solution.  I am drawing a drastic 
conclusion here given just a little data, but one consideration is 
that perhaps there is no way consenus will be achieved and therefore 
the WG be disbanded.

...All of these opinions are "out there" and are in no way meant to 
be recommendations nor approaches I have used in the IETF...but since 
you asked

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:43:00 -0400

Hi,
 
I have three suggestions.
 
1) Consult with your AD. 
 
He/she has been following the discussions of your WG and will be aware of
the nature of the problem you are raising, while you cannot share that
information with us, so any recommendations we make are made based on very
inadequate information. If the AD is not aware of the problem, maybe the
problem is not as bad as you think it is.
 
The ADs have oversight of multiple working groups, and will be able to tell
whether the behavior in your group is in fact out of the ordinary compared
to other groups. It may be that you and your co-chair have a bias, and the
company presenting their case may simply not support your bias. The AD
should be able to provide another set of eyes to examine the problem. 
 
If the AD thinks the problem is serious, it will be discussed amongst the
IESG members.
 
When a proposal is submitted for advancement, those who didn't "win" are
likely to resurface. Having the AD and the IESG well aware of the problem
will help overcome advancement challenges later. 
 
2) Constrain the scope of the discussions to achieve incremental progress.
 
You describe this as an ongoing problem. If the discussions are going over
the same ground time after time, members will get frustrated from having to
argue the same points repeatedly, tempers will flair, and the WG effort will
be perceived as being irrelevant due to the lack of progress. The chairs
should fix this problem.
 
Guide the WG to identify specific issues, preferably numbering the issues.
Then debate the issues, insisting that email be focused on one issue# at a
time. Then determine the consensus of the WG on one issue at a time.
Document how you determined consensus and verify that your ADs agree with
your methodology. Post the chair's opinion on the consensus to the mailing
list, seeking additional comment, as an informal last call on the consensus
for the issue. Then post the chair's consensus determination to the mailing
list, and declare the issue closed. 
 
For contentious decisions, be very careful that you can show from email
discussions and recorded meeting "hums" that it is the clear consensus of
the WG, and not just your opinion; you may need it for advancement
challenges later. 
 
Close each issue for which you can establish consensus. The non-contentious
issues will close first. Publicly declaring closure makes WG progress
visible (which will encourage members to participate). Asking the WG to
confirm consensus calls on the non-contentious items sidelines the
discussions that are most contentious (thus minimizing the factor that is
driving people away). Consensus on the non-volatile topics may limit the
options and thus reduce the scope of the volatile discussions, making them
easier to manage.
 
Once an issue has been closed, rule all further discussion of the details of
the issue out of scope unless there is a strong WG consensus to the
chair-posed question "should the WG reopen the issue for further
discussion?" (You will need to allow people to raise the point that the
decision on issue #xxx impacts other specific decisions in a way that would
lead to a bad protocol design, but you can shut down posters that insist on
debating closed issues.) If you need to limit discussion of closed topics,
the documentation of the emails and hums used to establish consensus can be
trotted out to justify shutting down a discussion.
 
3) Raise the ante.
 
If both approaches are technically strong, and you cannot simply achieve
consensus in an incremental way, then force the contenders to prove that
their approach is better. Make the WG members be computer scientists, and
reach justifiable conclusions about which would make the better industry
standard.
 
Warn all parties that any proposal put forth is subject to IETF rules on
intellectual property. Require declarations from all involved about any
intellectual property regarding the issues under debate.
 
Require that the arguments be technical in nature. Ask the debaters to
provide empirical data to support their approach, preferably empirical data
that can be independently verified by others.
 
Ask for reference implementations of running code to demonstrate that an
approach actually works. 
 
Hope this helps,
dbh

David Harrington           
[email-masked]          
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG

 -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Question for the list

Hi, I have a quick, off the wall question for the list.  I'm looking for
some tidbits and advice.   

Here's the scenario.  Say there is this group of people from the same
organization (or it could be one person for that matter) who respond so
agressively on the list as to appear to be a "filibuster". Note for the
record - this is not a large, west coast organization. 8-)  We are
experiencing just such an attack - it has now reached the stage that it has
driven some people away from the list. 

My question is this - how do other chairs handle that?  Is there any special
technique.  Here's what we've done so far. 

1. Asked the group on the list to "back off" (in a nice way) 
2. Talked privately to members of the group at an IETF meeting asking the
same thing 
3.  Talked privately to try and determine what is the issue. 

One other point, they seem to attack one person in particular.  However, in
checking back on the list, other unlucky souls have received equal emphasis.

I know this goes on all the time - however, this one is getting a bit out of
hand.  So, I'm looking for some sage advice.  thanks in advance.