thoughts on w.g. concensus process

[James Kempf]

Bob,

This matches my experience, except I think that the size of the group does
matter. I've been involved in concensus decision making both within IETF and
within other groups, and my experience is that a smaller group generally leads
to more of a feeling of a team environment. In such an environment, people are
more willing to forgo individual advantage for the overall goal of coming out
with a solution. Of course, it is possible even in a small group for one person
to block concensus, but my experience is that it is rarer.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden at IPRG.nokia.com>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:03 PM
Subject: thoughts on w.g. concensus process


> I have been the chair of several working groups where we were able to reach
> consensus on divisive topics.  I have several observations on the process
> based on this experience.
>
> In order for a working group to reach a consensus on a single solution
> there first has to be a consensus that doing so is desirable.  This might
> not be obvious, but there can be lots of reasons why people won't agree
> that this is important.  Some reasons I have seen include (in no particular
> order) 1) Fear that their solution won't be picked, 2) Not wanting any
> solution in this area (e.g,. raising objections instead of working toward
> solutions), 3) No compelling market need so there is little reason to reach
> closure (e.g., more research focus than product focus), 4) Disagreement
> that a single solution is appropriate (e.g., a single solution may not
> really solve the problem, or people disagree on the cost/benefit ratios of
> different solutions).
>
> Unless the working group chairs can lead the working group to the point
> where there is agreement that a single solution is valuable, it is unlikely
> to happen.  It is easiest to do this when the different solutions are only
> different in details (e.g., how to encapsulate IP on a particular link
> type) and/or there is short term market need.  If the solutions address
> different problems and/or there is no pressing market need it may not be
> possible.  Sometimes there can be a middle ground where the group agrees
> with most of what is in a document, and there is only disagreement on a few
> items.  In this case, a push by the working group chair(s) for the need for
> completion can work to get people to put aside their differences.
>
> I don't think reaching a consensus is directly related to the size of a
> working group, but it can be easier if the group is smaller.  Even a small
> group can deadlock if the conditions mentioned above aren't
> resolved.  Large groups are also known to reach consensus too.
>
> In my view, the most important job of working group chair(s) to lead the
> w.g. toward a consensus.  It's is a process that requires leadership more
> than anything else.
>
> Bob
>
> p.s. I think that choosing from among different solutions is the core work
> of the IETF.  The IETF is not a research group where solutions are
> invented.  It is an engineering group whose focus is to pick from available
> solutions and create an open standard.  The IETF's consensus process is
> well suited to picking from available solutions.  It is not a good approach
> for research.  Sometimes I think we get this confused.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>