Conflict Resolution within a Working Group: Problem Statement
draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-12-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 N. Elkins
                                                   Inside Products, Inc.
                                                          H. Schulzrinne
Intended Status: Informational                       Columbia University
Expires: June 8, 2019                                   December 5, 2018

     Conflict Resolution within a Working Group: Problem Statement 
                   draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-01

Abstract

   At the IETF, we currently use a set of methods to communicate a point
   of view, to solicit input, to resolve conflict and attempt to obtain
   consensus within the group.  These methods include: writing an
   Internet Draft, discussion on email lists, discussion at face-to-
   face, interim or virtual meetings, and design teams.  At times, these
   methods fall short.  People become entrenched in their positions.  A
   Working Group may be split for a prolonged period wasting time and
   energy.  There may be a lasting impact.  While the authors support
   rough consensus, the collateral damage of this process, at times can
   be considerable.  This document discusses the benefits and drawbacks
   of each of the current methods of communication focusing solely on
   their efficacy at conflict resolution.   A companion document will
   propose some solutions including alternative methods of conflict
   resolution.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
 

N. Elkins                 Expires June 8, 2019                  [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT         Conflict Problem Statement       December 5, 2018

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

 

N. Elkins                 Expires June 8, 2019                  [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT         Conflict Problem Statement       December 5, 2018

Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1 Conflict about Design Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2 Fundamental Disagreement and Competing Goals . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3 Values-Based Conflict  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.4 Cultural Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Current Methods of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1 Writing an Internet Draft  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.2 Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2 Discussion on Email Lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.2 Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3 Discussion at Face-to-Face or Interim Meetings . . . . . . .  8
       2.3.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.3.2 Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.4 Design Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.4.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.4.2 Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Show full document text