Re: Beyond conflict

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>]

At 17:14 14/10/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On fredag, oktober 14, 2005 16:58:11 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
> <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > I think we should look at new collaboration tools, for example has
> > > anyone tried using a wiki to maintain an issues list?
> > Quite a few WGs use issue trackers of various kinds.
> >
> > The Global Grid Forum uses a web tool based on sourceforge
> > for Last Call comments (which they call Public Comment). That
> > of course prevents self-feeding mailstorms.
>
> the "of course" part being that it's so cumbersome to use that folks 
> don't check it that often, so they don't react to others' comments?
> mailstorms have their positive sides....

agreed.

A few years ago we had a DNSO/GA task force to improve the working 
methods of this now defunct structure. One interesting extremely 
simple  feature we discussed and I implemented positively later on in 
a few cases (for complex private thinking, report preparation) was 
the "position statement link".

The charter and the current status of intended the deliverables are 
documented on a single simple site with a link with all the 
participant pages (could be the IETF WG Page), lurkers do not need to 
have a page. On their page, participants maintain their own 
_different_ positions on the currently discussed topics (when they 
agree with the advancement of the deliverable, they remove their 
position). They can keep archives, historic, back-ground, quotes, links, etc.

The interest is that anyone entering the debate can have a full 
understanding of the pending issues in minutes. And the matters can 
be organised. So you can consider Chapter 17 only, without having to 
read everything.

Also, a consensus is only to reduce the differences between 
propositions (no need to repeat the differences ad nauseam - when you 
update them everyone seens it). In different groups I experimented 
different page formats, reporting tools, etc. From this I am sure: 
the concepts may support many variations, may support many different 
WG styles, make the difference/blocking points plain to everyone, 
help to agree or agree we disagree (people not documenting a position 
on a topic have no reason to interfere), etc. It is very near from a 
wi-ki but far easier to implement, and it permits everyone to be the 
master of his presentation (ppt, jpeg, etc.). Also, position sites 
can be collective. Tools to establish compared position reports can 
be developed, if there is a common format (can be very simple and 
cover only one summary block per topic on each page).

One of the most interesting (disturbing?) "feature" is that everyone 
can assess the competence/ignorance and humility/arrogance of every 
participant. This tends to reduce the debate to the people who have 
real experience, without preventing new suggestions. This also 
permits small groups to form on an issue to work a common position, 
without splitting the working group: the result is put online in 
common - through a specialised link, or to support the position of a 
person, etc. It also permits external guest specialists from a side 
aspect to comment and to be listen to. They have not to follow all 
the debate, just to comment on their own part. Once their 
presentation is agreed, the group can refer to it (or ask for more details).

Experience shown it takes time to start (new concept, it was not a 
real product, people must know how to maintain an HTML page, etc.). 
But afterwards it permits to go much faster, to rise the quality 
standard, etc. and also to support large period of inactivity or of 
separate thinking (experimentation). Also, the "it told you"s which 
were never told do not work. When someone discovers a yet not solved 
problem, he just describes it on his site. Only him can remove it. So 
we are sure we have a consensus. This is not the WG-Chair who orders it.

A good point is that it also simplifies multilingual common work. The 
entries can be crafted by participants. Explanations can be attached 
and reviewed if not understood. Once, I saw opponents reviewing texts 
of their adversaries - just to make sure they understood the 
objection correctly. This can be very simple, quick and rewarding 
(when helping editing, one understand better). Once the only mailing 
was to announce the updated pages (so only the organiser sent mails 
to the list). It could have been automated in any language. Inventing 
a RFC 3683 PR-action is very difficult in such a context.

for what it is worth.

jfc





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf