jseng at pobox.org.sg
Mon Jun 23 22:44:09 CEST 2003
Yes, it is a problem too (or at least I think so..others may disagree).
That is a natural of problems...they are all linked together. P1 leads
to P2 & P3 which leads to P4, P5, P6, P7 and so on.
So, why are we avoiding stating P1 and instead trying to frame it at
one/two degree removed problem of P4 to P7? Why?
Could someone fill me in or are there reasons which I am not aware? I
mean, it is not as if we are naming any individual in the draft.
(I hate to think we have lost the candid in our culture.)
Melinda Shore wrote:
>>>but it *doesn't* prevent a WG chair from declaring rough consensus.
>>It shouldnt. But it does.
> Then isn't that a problem with how our chairs operate? I
> think that to a very great extent working groups face a
> prisoner's dilemma situation and not all self-interest is
> enlightened. There are countless, I suspect, aspects to
> this problem, ranging from consensus process really being
> fairly ill-suited to situations in which there's not a
> shared commitment to the process itself to working group
> chairs not being sure how much authority we've got. I think
> it's extremely useful to talk about how our processes are
> failing to deal with participants who refuse to take "no"
> for an answer, but for the purposes of the working group and
> its follow-on (the solutions group) it's more useful to
> focus on how the problem is instantiated within the IETF and
> less on the fact that there are some people who are just
> plain difficult.
> That's a windy way of saying that difficult people aren't a
> problem if we've got mechanisms to get our work done anyway.
More information about the Problem-statement