"trouble maker"

[James Seng]

It appears to me that people has not disagreed with my suggestion of 
the problem (P1) that a few individual is capable of stalling the 
process almost indefinately and yes, I also agree with you that the 
other problem (P2) is we have no process to deal with P1.

(Note, P1 & P2 are two separate problem altho they are related).

I have already made my proposed wordings for the framing of this problem 
without using degrading term like "trouble maker". If you feel that my 
wording are not sufficiently politically correct, then please propose 
your wording.

--- CUT HERE ---
2.6.1 Vocal individual have ability to stall the rough consensus 
building process

In some working groups, a vocal individual could stall the working group 
progress for many months or indefinately by repeatively re-opening 
closed issues. This, coupled with the threat with appeal on technical 
and process ground, effectively prevented the working group chair to 
declare a rough consensus on the group.
--- CUT HERE ---

-James Seng

Melinda Shore wrote:
>>According to the charter of this group at, the group are looking at the 
>>problems with "the ways IETF operates". This is not limited to structure 
>>and processes only.
> 
> 
> [Taking off my chair hat]
> 
> Of course, but it seems clear to me that the problem isn't
> that there are a few obstructive people but that we don't
> have (or don't use) mechanisms to deal with that very well.
> I don't think that there's much that we can do about human
> nature or human motivation, but there are things we can do
> about how we operate.  For example, I've seen exactly what
> you describe (repeated re-opening of closed issues) and I
> think that if WG chairs refuse allow decisions to be
> revisited without new information or a new argument being 
> presented that problem can be addressed without
> fundamentally re-engineering human nature.  I'd strongly
> prefer to see this problem you're describing, which I
> absolutely agree is a problem, framed in terms of the IETF
> rather than in terms of the individual.
> 
> Melinda
> 
>