Barriers to consensus formation

[Scott W Brim]

The strength of text-based communication is that you don't have to
serialize.  Everyone can "speak" at once, and be heard.  The "listener"
can process input out of order and get results.  

Let's start with the out-of-scope mail you're referring to.  I believe a
less than fully committed participant could simply wait a bit and see
what other people's responses are, and in that way discover that the
message was not directly relevant.  

Similarly, for in-scope mail, less than fully committed participants --
or those that read slowly -- can start by skimming the high points, and
if any of those seems important, work down and back from it, to discover
issues where they feel they should say something.

Text takes more time than speech, not only to write, but to read.  Using
mail is a classic IETF tradeoff.  However, the text is all there -- it
doesn't have to be dealt with serially.  It's possible to contribute to
a WG even if you're not completely dedicated, as long as you're willing
to give up being on the leading edge all the time.  It's possible for an
inundation of out-of-scope mail to exclude all but the most dedicated
from *leadership*, but not from making contributions.  

..swb

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 07:58:24AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> 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
>