Subject: "trouble maker"

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:19:42 +0800

I was going thru draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement and found something 
missing...

For those of us who have chair IETF WG, I am sure we have encountered, 
one time or another, members of the group whom we considered "trouble 
maker".

While the term "trouble maker" is a usually a matter of individual 
opinion, the type which I particularly have problem with are the ones 
who are extremely disruptive in the working group repeating issues 
usually with the attempt to derail the progress or having the attitute 
that "i-will-not-close-this-issue-unless-you-agree-with-me".

It become even more painful when these "trouble makers" are well-verse 
in "IETF appeal process" and not hesitant to use these rules to achieve 
their goal. It is a painful and waste of time for the chairs and the ADs 
who are already overworked.

It is not unusual for a single "trouble maker" derailing the progress 
for as long as a year or more.

While we can debate over what is the appropriate solution to deal with 
"trouble makers", at least pls capture this issue in the problem statement.

-James Seng

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:16:25 -0400

> one time or another, members of the group whom we considered "trouble 

The flip side of this is the WG that just won't get it - no matter how valid
the issues that are raised, the group brands the individual a "trouble maker"
and refuses to do anything about them other than to try to marginalize him or
her.  No matter how well-supported that individual's arguments are, they are
dismissed as specious - or the group will even claim that the arguments or
evidence have not been presented.  This is most likely to happen when the
group sees the individual as "not one of us" - e.g. not an employee of a
vendor of the products that the group is trying to standardize. 

So if we're going to mention the troublemaker issue in the document (and I
agree it's a valid issue), we should mention this issue also.

I've also seen groups get hung up for months because they couldn't make a
decision to stop arguing.  They'll blame it on the troublemaker, but the
troublemaker isn't the real problem - the problem is that the group isn't
willing or able to make a decision in the presence of any controversy.
Sometimes the right thing for a group to do is to document the controversy
and move on.  And sometimes the right thing is to ask for wider review of a
design decision.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:33:13 -0400

> The flip side of this is the WG that just won't get it -
> no matter how valid the issues that are raised, the group
> brands the individual a "trouble maker" and refuses to do
> anything about them other than to try to marginalize him
> or her.

I've certainly seen both happen, both within the IETF and
elsewhere.  But this working group is focused on identifying
problems with IETF structures and processes, and it seems to
me that the issues that both of you are raising have to do
with decision-making and dispute resolution, two areas where
I believe we've got some really serious problems.  Does
anyone feel like proposing some specific text for the draft?

Melinda

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 05:38:33 +0800

> vendor of the products that the group is trying to standardize. 

This is where the "fuzziness" of "trouble maker" comes in, especially no 
one likes to be label as such. We need a careful definition.

(btw, imho, someone who provides constructive counterview is a *not* a 
trouble maker)

> and move on.  And sometimes the right thing is to ask for wider review of a

But lets not forget the core principle of IETF are "running code" and 
"rough consensus". So in the event of arguments of "technical merits" vs 
"rough consensus", "rough consensus" *should* win. (Unless there are 
"technical failure" in the proposed solution.)

In other words, so long a solution 'works' and have majority support 
from the community, it wins. The existence or non-existance of any other 
'better solution' is irrelevant.

But as you said, WG chairs are in difficult position to declare "rough 
consensus" in the event of controversy (aka, "someone still complaining 
about it") especially worried over appeal. This effectively put a halt 
on the progress in many working groups. And personally, I find this is a 
serious problem which slows down IETF drastically.

-James Seng

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:04:59 +0800

According to the charter of this group at, the group are looking at the 
problems with "the ways IETF operates". This is not limited to structure 
and processes only.

(is this an example of Problem 2.1 Participants in the IETF do not share 
a common understanding of its mission?)

For wordings, I proposed to add a sub section to 2.6, as follows:

2.6.1 Vocal individual have ability to stall the rough consensus 
building process

In some working groups, a vocal individual could stall the working group 
progress for many months or indefinately by repeatively re-opening 
closed issues. This, coupled with the threat with appeal on technical 
and process ground, effectively prevented the working group chair to 
declare a rough consensus on the group.

-James Seng

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:35:04 -0400

> declare a rough consensus on the group.

but it *doesn't* prevent a WG chair from declaring rough consensus.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:36:44 -0400

>  So in the event of arguments of "technical merits" vs 
> "rough consensus", "rough consensus" *should* win. 

if it's just a question of the best way to do things - agree.
the best is the enemy of the good.

if the proposal doesn't meet the qualifications in 2026 - disagree.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:41:51 -0400

> problems with "the ways IETF operates". This is not limited to structure 

[Taking off my chair hat]

Of course, but it seems clear to me that the problem isn't
that there are a few obstructive people but that we don't
have (or don't use) mechanisms to deal with that very well.
I don't think that there's much that we can do about human
nature or human motivation, but there are things we can do
about how we operate.  For example, I've seen exactly what
you describe (repeated re-opening of closed issues) and I
think that if WG chairs refuse allow decisions to be
revisited without new information or a new argument being 
presented that problem can be addressed without
fundamentally re-engineering human nature.  I'd strongly
prefer to see this problem you're describing, which I
absolutely agree is a problem, framed in terms of the IETF
rather than in terms of the individual.

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:49:41 -0400

very much in agreement.

Keith

> For example, I've seen exactly what

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:02:36 +0900

[speaking personally]

the problem i end up having, is how does one know there
is new information or a new argument until after that argument
is given.   the tendency is often to rephrase the argument in
new language.  but the speaker if asked, will certainly claim
it is a new argument or info.

this is where i think a procedural mechanism may be helpful.

a.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:10:19 -0400

> have (or don't use) mechanisms to deal with that very well.

Yes.

> I'd strongly

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:19:01 -0400

> this is where i think a procedural mechanism may be helpful.

yes, I agree we would benefit from having explicit procedures to resolve
these problems.

---

From: "Daniel O. Awduche" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:45:35 -0400

As a matter of principle, the process needs to focus on the 
merits of arguments, not some characterization of the individuals 
involved. Often times, people in authority have a tendency to 
portray others with dissenting views as "trouble makers," thereby 
precluding the diligence of applying basic management skills to 
resolve contentious issues and/or drive towards rough consensus.

i.e. there should be no place for the term "trouble maker" in 
IETF documents.

Cheers,
/Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Seng
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: "trouble maker"

While we can debate over what is the appropriate solution to deal with 
"trouble makers", at least pls capture this issue in the problem
statement.

-James Seng

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:47:47 +0800

It appears to me that people has not disagreed with my suggestion of 
the problem (P1) that a few individual is capable of stalling the 
process almost indefinately and yes, I also agree with you that the 
other problem (P2) is we have no process to deal with P1.

(Note, P1 & P2 are two separate problem altho they are related).

I have already made my proposed wordings for the framing of this problem 
without using degrading term like "trouble maker". If you feel that my 
wording are not sufficiently politically correct, then please propose 
your wording.

--- CUT HERE ---

-James Seng

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:48:58 -0400

> this is where i think a procedural mechanism may be helpful.

a related problem is getting the group to remember what the previous 
decision was, and what the compelling arguments for that decision were.
This is especially a problem when it's not possible to read the decision 
out of the drafts - for instance, where a decision was to *remove* stuff 
from a draft - or where there is a large turnover of WG membership.

<solutionism>
record-keeping in a form other than the list archive and the end product of 
the WG might be a good idea; I've occasionally seen meeting minutes used 
this way, but it's more difficult for decisions reached on the mailing list.
</solutionism>

                   Harald

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:59:22 +0800

It shouldnt. But it does.

-James Seng

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:11:23 -0400

> It shouldnt. But it does.

Then isn't that a problem with how our chairs operate?  I
think that to a very great extent working groups face a
prisoner's dilemma situation and not all self-interest is
enlightened.  There are countless, I suspect, aspects to
this problem, ranging from consensus process really being
fairly ill-suited to situations in which there's not a
shared commitment to the process itself to working group
chairs not being sure how much authority we've got.  I think
it's extremely useful to talk about how our processes are
failing to deal with participants who refuse to take "no"
for an answer, but for the purposes of the working group and
its follow-on (the solutions group) it's more useful to
focus on how the problem is instantiated within the IETF and
less on the fact that there are some people who are just
plain difficult.

That's a windy way of saying that difficult people aren't a
problem if we've got mechanisms to get our work done anyway.

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:19:52 -0400

> Then isn't that a problem with how our chairs operate? 

that, and/or expectations of participants, or limitations of the mailing list
as a medium for holding these discussions.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jun 2003 06:42:02 -0700

> problem if we've got mechanisms to get our work done anyway.

Melinda,

I think this is a useful formulation of the problem.  Unfortunately,
it also leads to some pretty depressing conclusions.

The game theoretic aspects of parliamentary and voting systems have
been pretty extensively studied (see Couter's "The Strategic
Constitution" or Buchanan & Tulock's "The Calculus of Consent") and it
turns out that a number of the nastier aspects of politics are pretty
much the immediate consequence of people pursuing their own
interests. [0] In particular, systems that require unanimity and near
unanimity are highly susceptible to participants "holding out"
in hopes of getting a better deal, which is of course what we're
seeing here.

It's not known, even in principle, how to get rid of these problems,
which is why pretty much all existing political decision making
systems have them.

-Ekr

[0] Yes, I know that we talk about the "good of the Internet" as the
goal people are supposed to shoot for, but I don't think that's a
particularly useful model of what's happening here. First, people
often don't agree on what that is and so are pursuing divergent goals,
for whatever reasons. Second, I think it's pretty clear that in a
number of cases people are in fact pursuing their own interests.

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   [email-masked]]
                http://www.rtfm.com/

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:44:09 +0800

Yes, it is a problem too (or at least I think so..others may disagree).

That is a natural of problems...they are all linked together. P1 leads 
to P2 & P3 which leads to P4, P5, P6, P7 and so on.

So, why are we avoiding stating P1 and instead trying to frame it at 
one/two degree removed problem of P4 to P7? Why?

Could someone fill me in or are there reasons which I am not aware? I 
mean, it is not as if we are naming any individual in the draft.

(I hate to think we have lost the candid in our culture.)

-James Seng

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:37:28 -0400

> one/two degree removed problem of P4 to P7? Why?

To be clear, we're not avoiding it.  We're talking about
it.  I'm just really not that sure that it's useful to
identify "obstructive individuals" as a problem - to me that
feels a little like identifying the considerable distance
from Ithaca to Vienna as a problem.  Human behavior is
pretty much of a given, I think, and it's how well we
cope with it that is or is not a problem.  It's really not a
question of being candid, but of keeping the document
focused and producing something that we can act upon.

I'm going to create a ticket in the RT database derived from
your initial post, but while I agree there's a big problem
here I still don't agree with your exact formulation of it.

Melinda

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:43:43 +0800

Melinda,

What you been telling me so far is that you acknowledge the problem but 
disagreed with the phrasing of my wordings. While it is easy to say "I 
dont like the wordings", you can be more constructive by putting your 
counterproposal.

There are many ways a "trouble maker" could make life very difficult for 
the working group (1) They could re-open issues again and again (2) They 
could make statments to discredit their opponent in public (and the 
smart one can do it without been libel) (3) When they fail, they nitpick 
on the wordings ("the wordings is confusing" or "I agree with the 
concept but I disagree with the wordings") (4) They could hijack the 
document author (5) they could threaten appeal on process ground (6) 
they could delay further by carried out their threats (7) they continue 
the disagreement in other mailing list & forums. And there are many many 
more ways

Unfortunately, Working group, wg chairs & ADs have very few tools to 
stop these DoS. (so this is yet another problem).

Now, we could try to anticipate what the "trouble maker" could do and 
set procedure & process to deal with the action but you can not capture 
all possible things they could have done. And I dont believe we should 
set dragonian policy to deal with a 80/20 problem...it is not worth it.

Bottomline, there are trouble makers and they could do 101 things to 
make life difficult for you, all within whatever rules you can set. What 
we need is a specific process we can use when and *IF* we can identify 
them. All we have right now is to revoke posting rights for a period of 
time and that is not sufficient.

ps: No, I dont think we can re-engineer human behavior.

-James Seng

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:43:25 -0700

Harald,

> this way, but it's more difficult for decisions reached on the mailing
list.

I've started requesting draft editors in WGs where I'm chair to keep an
issues list that contains what the current issues with drafts are, proposed
solutions, and why the proposed solution was selected. This is a very useful
tool in moving work forward and preventing the revisiting of issues. In some
cases, people raise issues again not because they want to disrupt work but
because either they were not involved in the initial discussion and don't
have the context or they have forgottent the original discussion. The issues
lists are not meant to be a permanent archive of the WG's work, like mailing
list archives and RFCs, however.

            jak

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:01:30 -0400

> make life difficult for you, all within whatever rules you can set.
> What we need is a specific process we can use when and *IF* we can
> identify them. All we have right now is to revoke posting rights for a
> period of time and that is not sufficient.

this is a really disturbing suggestion.  it's one thing if a
"troublemaker" is being personally abusive to other participants or
insists on repeatedly bringing up topics that aren't within the scope of
the group.  in those cases I can imagine that it is sometimes
appropriate to revoke posting rights for that individual.  but when the
individual is citing technical objections to a WG proposal this is not
even something that should be considered.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:48:06 +0800

I agree the line are hard to draw.

Forget about my suggestion. Honestly, I dont even know what can we do 
reasonably without overdoing or risk of abuse. (One of the reasons to 
touch the "solution" of the problem :-P)

Regardless, I certainly feel the problem should be captured, in whatever 
appropriate form. I am waiting for a counterproposal.

-James Seng

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:49:30 -0400

> dont like the wordings", you can be more constructive by putting your 

That's fair enough, although I'm trying to keep a light hand
here.

My view of how the problem should be oriented is this:
Existing IETF processes do not provide adequate protection
against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled
participants.

That said, in thinking about what I've seen happen it's
almost always been the fault of the WG chair when an
individual has become functionally disruptive, so I'm not
sure that this is a process problem as much as an
implementation problem.  Many of the problems you list could
be resolved without process changes by the chairs being more
decisive.

The other thing that concerns me is that I think that the
question of whether someone holding firm is being disruptive
or is a lone voice of sanity is highly subjective.  I've
seen people who lost an argument be disruptive out of
resentment or personal interest and I've seen people who
lost an argument be disruptive because they're right.

Melinda

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:56:54 -0400

> against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled

Disgruntled, or intentionally disruptive.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:19:34 -0400

> Disgruntled, or intentionally disruptive.

Yes, the latter is an improvement.

Melinda

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:31:37 +0800

> against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled

Thank you. It is a reasonable start.

 > be resolved without process changes by the chairs being more

It is not always possible for a wg chair to function without offending 
somebody. We are not here to earn brownies points.

It is not always the fault of the wg chair specifically. Sometimes it is 
personal, sometimes it is individual behavior, and sometimes it is a wg 
management problem. I hate to jump to conclusion and write off it off as 
"it is the wg chair's fault".

It is also not always possible for the wg chair to be decisive. 
Sometimes, these individuals may have a few other support and making 
sufficient noise that it is difficult to move forward. (aka "I have 
documented 7 complains against the X draft"). Or worst, the murky case 
where the individual makes an excellent technical argument but did not 
get the support.

Lastly, wg chairs dont get shoot down for waiting for the dust to settle 
but you may get an appeal for declaring consensus. Doing your risk 
analysis, it is easier to say "Lets wait".

> lost an argument be disruptive because they're right.

Being argumentive is not neccessary disruptive. Neither is been 
stubborn. Everyone are entitled to their opinion. The wg chairs could 
probably note the differences in opinion and work it out in the judgement.

But there are some individuals who have intentionly disrupt the working 
group process and their actions are beyond been just argumentive.

-James Seng

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:12:48 -0400

> against "denial of service" attacks by disgruntled

How about this instead:

Many working groups have had trouble making forward progerss in the
presence of strident objections to the majority opinion from individual
or small numbers of participants.  The majority may believe these are
"denial of service attacks" that are intended to prevent the group from
producing useful output; the minority individuals may see them as "clue
donation" to groups suffering from an overly narrow focus or mob
mentality, or as "filibusters" - awkward but effective political tools
that are sometimes necessary to use to get a group to produce
reasonable compromises. Regardless of motivation or point-of-view, the
inability of many groups to move past these issues appears to cause
significant delays in working group output, and may harm the quality of
the output.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:03:17 -0700

Folks,

KM> Many working groups have had trouble making forward progerss in the
KM> presence of strident objections ...The majority may believe these are
KM> ... the minority individuals may see them as ...

The thread's exploration of this difficult a topic has been heartening.

There *are* obstructionist folk that damage working group activities,
sometimes.  We all know this and suffer from it.  But we will be vastly
ahead of the game if we can find a way to deal with it that is more
basic -- that is, more generally useful.

I think the sequence leading to Keith's proposed text goes in the right
direction, namely focusing on the need to make forward progress and
(forcefully) manage the working group to achieve it.

Sometimes, a working group is stalled by obstructionist folk. Sometimes,
a working group is stalled by poor focus, or the like, including poor
understanding of goals or just plain bad discussion management. So, I
wonder whether there is an essential difference between the two? My
guess is that both are solved through the same techniques.

Problematic working groups often suffer from a poor understanding of
their goal -- what is to be solved? -- or poor discipline at discussing
them. This usually leads to endless cycling over the same topics, with
no convergence.  Frankly I think this is not much different from the
individual who constantly harangues the other participants.

Well-managed groups have real discussion structure and real enforcement
of it, including bringing topics to a close and not revisiting them
without a *very* good reason.

   Clearly the key to this is the working group chair, but the piece
   that I think is easy to miss is that working group's must actively
   support such active management. This means that the working group
   must show rough consensus to empower the chair to enforce the
   structure.

Separately, we need to make sure that there are enough rules and support
for enforcement for those special folk who really are disruptive,
through personal attack and other offensive behavior. However I believe
we are in pretty good shape, in that regard, except possibly for making
sure that working group chair use the power they have. Suspending
posting priviledges is getting solid, defensible rules and process. And
wg chairs have always had the authority to refuse the floor to folks at
meetings. (How many wg chairs know this, is another matter.)

Rather, perhaps we can focus on the unfocused and undisciplined working
groups, and find that we have dealt with overly "tenacious" contributors
along the way?

With that in mind, let me suggest revision to Keith's text:

Working groups can have trouble making forward progress, due to a lack
of firm discussion management. This can be due to poor chair management,
general lack of working group focus, or problematic participants.
Section 3.3, "Session management", of RFC 2418, "IETF Working Group
Guidelines and Procedures" provides a useful framework for managing this
issue. Regardless of motivation or point-of-view, the failure of wg
chairs and participants to work actively to to maintain productive focus
and to move past specific topics appears to cause significant delays in
working group output, and to harm the quality of the output.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:56:53 -0400

> working group output, and to harm the quality of the output.

I almost agree, though I think it presumes the solution a bit too much - and
in a way that overly narrows the solution space.  And I also think it's a bit
of topic drift.

I do think these problems can be solved (and sometimes have been solved) by
firm discussion management.  But I also think we would do well to establish
procedures that the management can use to keep the group moving forward,
while still giving ample room for dissenting voices to be heard, their
views considered, and with the possibility of appeal if the dissenter believes
the group is making a serious technical error.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:59:55 +0800

Dave,

While I do not disagree a lot of what you said, I prefer Keith original 
statement mainly because it does not assume any solution.

-James Seng

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:19:35 -0700

James,

JS> While I do not disagree a lot of what you said, I prefer Keith original
JS> statement mainly because it does not assume any solution.

Focusing on disruptive individuals assumes the problem.

My point is that it is constructive to treat disruptive individuals as a
symptom, rather than as a core problem.

They are an especially painful symptom, but their effect is altered
considerably by working group participant and chair resolve to make
forward progress.

Focus on the disruptive individuals and we will debate personal issues.
We're not very good at that.

Focus on the positive need to make forward progress, and we will solve
multiple problems.

d/

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:58:17 +0800

Dave,

As I said, i did not disagree with you.

I just dont think we should have wordings in the problem-statement with 
assumed solution.

What you describe below can go into the problem-process if there is 
agreement, if there is agreement that is the solution to this problem.

-James Seng