On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> There's also a common tendency of some kinds of groups to categorically
>> dismiss the opinions of those that they see as outliers, even to the point
>> of diminishing their numbers. If one of those objecting happens to defend
>> his viewpoint vigorously and to respond to numerous attacks on not only his
>> viewpoint but also his legitimacy, motivation, character, etc., there is a
>> tendency among some to dismiss his opinions even more.
>>
>> All of these clearly happened in recent discussions in v6ops.
>>
>> It's certainly true that one lone speaker should not be able to deny rough
>> consensus to a group. That's why the consensus only has to be "rough".
>> But if the group doesn't even try to understand a minority view, it cannot
>> be said to have tried to reach consensus of any kind.
>
> Quite contrary imho if you want to speak of 6to4-to-historic in specific. The
> viewpoint most effusively expressed by yourself is quite well understood.
> Lack of reconciliation does not imply that it was simply swept under the rug.
I have recently received several private emails that indicated that particular
speakers did not understand it, though we were usually able to sort out the
differences in private conversation.
I certainly don't claim that my concerns were swept under the rug by the WG
management. But in a group is largely composed of individuals with a
particular point-of-view, it can be difficult for members of that group to see
the merit in the opinion of a minority, or lone speaker, with a different
point-of-view. Those who want to categorically dismiss that minority viewpoint
will get plenty of support from other members in the group.
>>> To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many
>>> people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a
>>> filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of
>>> opinion ("agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity,
>>> solidarity; formal concord") coupled with listening carefully to those who
>>> disagree and determining whether their arguments actually make sense and
>>> point up an issue. I will recognize a single person's point at issue if it
>>> appears that they are not being listened to or their issue dealt with. If
>>> they are simply hammering a point, and their point is incorrect, I will
>>> note that they have been hammering an incorrect point ("even though you are
>>> sending one email in four in a long thread and are expressing extreme
>>> concern about a draft because it does ____, I will overlook your objections
>>> because it doesn't do that.") and move on.
>>
>> I'd agree with that logic. Though I note that "incorrect" is sometimes
>> subjective.
>
> I'd go a little further. It is trivially possible to establish two opposing
> positions neither of which are "wrong".
Absolutely.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
