"trouble maker"

[James Seng]

> My view of how the problem should be oriented is this:
> Existing IETF processes do not provide adequate protection
> against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled
> participants.

Thank you. It is a reasonable start.

> That said, in thinking about what I've seen happen it's
> almost always been the fault of the WG chair when an
> individual has become functionally disruptive, so I'm not
> sure that this is a process problem as much as an
> implementation problem. Many of the problems you list could
 > be resolved without process changes by the chairs being more
 > decisive.

It is not always possible for a wg chair to function without offending 
somebody. We are not here to earn brownies points.

It is not always the fault of the wg chair specifically. Sometimes it is 
personal, sometimes it is individual behavior, and sometimes it is a wg 
management problem. I hate to jump to conclusion and write off it off as 
"it is the wg chair's fault".

It is also not always possible for the wg chair to be decisive. 
Sometimes, these individuals may have a few other support and making 
sufficient noise that it is difficult to move forward. (aka "I have 
documented 7 complains against the X draft"). Or worst, the murky case 
where the individual makes an excellent technical argument but did not 
get the support.

Lastly, wg chairs dont get shoot down for waiting for the dust to settle 
but you may get an appeal for declaring consensus. Doing your risk 
analysis, it is easier to say "Lets wait".

> The other thing that concerns me is that I think that the
> question of whether someone holding firm is being disruptive
> or is a lone voice of sanity is highly subjective.  I've
> seen people who lost an argument be disruptive out of
> resentment or personal interest and I've seen people who
> lost an argument be disruptive because they're right.

Being argumentive is not neccessary disruptive. Neither is been 
stubborn. Everyone are entitled to their opinion. The wg chairs could 
probably note the differences in opinion and work it out in the judgement.

But there are some individuals who have intentionly disrupt the working 
group process and their actions are beyond been just argumentive.

-James Seng