Barriers to consensus formation

[Ralph Droms]

I agree, too, and can think of several specific cases in which I've been
the drop-out due to lack of time and loss of interest.

- Ralph

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> agree entirely.
>
> Keith
>
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:58:24 -0500
> John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 	... 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.
>