Barriers to consensus formation

[John C Klensin]

Hi.

I just commented on a problem on the IPR list.  It has been 
repeatedly observed as an IETF process issue, but doesn't seem 
to be reflected in the document, so it is probably worth 
repeating here. Ironically, it seems to affect this WG as well 
-- a check of the archives shows a rather large number of 
postings by a fairly small number of people.

To quote my explanation from the other note (slightly edited)...

	... one of the problems with the IETF process -- or any
	process that attempts to work through issues on an open
	mailing list -- is that it is possible to exclude all
	but the most dedicated participants by simply creating
	an overwhelming message volume.  When we do it to
	ourselves in the IETF, it is almost always inadvertent,
	but it still results in a consensus determined largely
	by the combination of those who stay in because they
	have axes to grind with those who have too much time on
	their hands (plus a few long-suffering co-chairs and
	editors).    It isn't a good way to make progress or to
	get answers that all of us can trust.

Extreme, and occasionally deliberate, versions of this in a WG 
context tend to produce consensus by exhaustion -- people rant, 
rave, and nit-pick until everyone else just drop out, leaving 
those who initiated the tactic to claim consensus.  But forcing 
most of the potential participants in a discussion out through 
the accident of excessive volume can be equally destructive.

      john


john