making strategic problems concrete

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Mar 24 17:45:06 CET 2003


James,

Thanks.  I see your view.

Part of being an IESG member is making hard decisions.  They should not
be bad guys for that reason.  If the decisions are consistently wrong by
an AD they should be replaced.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:11 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: making strategic problems concrete
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> > I hear you saying if consensus does not work then we may need an 
> > alternative to decision process?
> >
> 
> Here is what I'm saying:
> 
> 1) Concensus works best in small group situations. To the 
> extent we can get problems defined such that the number of 
> people involved in solving them is amiable to the concensus 
> process, we should.
> 
> 2) If concensus should fail, we either need to learn to live 
> with the bad side effects (delay in reaching agreement, 
> deadlock, designs that are overly complicated due to the need 
> to accommodate many different view points) or we need to 
> define some way of dealing with the bad side effects when they occur.
> 
> Throwing the burden on the IESG to resolve the bad side 
> effects of a failed concensus, as we do now, is not a good 
> solution because it makes more work for them and forces them 
> to play the role of perpetual bad guys.
> 
>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list