On 22-Apr-21 06:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 4/21/21 10:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> Bottom line: Anyone who wants to promote an idea within IETF has to
>> find some way of building consensus around that idea. And any time
>> there's inertia opposing that idea, building that consensus isn't
>> likely to be easy, even if it's a very good idea. It's still the
>> job of the proponents of that idea to try to build consensus; nobody
>> else is going to do it for them.
>
> How can you "build consensus" when you aren't allowed to even talk about
> it? I don't go to meetings. I don't want to go to meetings. Does that
> mean I am excluded from "building consensus"?
No, but (coupled with the move to on-line meetings with all their
sociological disadvantages) it really makes it much, much harder.
> Are there other ways to
> "build consensus" that I'm not aware of? I'm not even trying to "build
> consensus", per se. I'm just trying to get people to consider whether an
> alternative might be better and if not, why not.
Traditionally this list right here is where you would do that. Or if you
scope it as a Transport Area problem, tsv-area@xxxxxxxx ("A mailing list
for discussions on topics pertinent to the IETF Transport and Services
Area (TSV)").
> Does that "hamper progress"? Especially after about a half dozen
> messages and less than 24 hours?
As I said, it seemed a bit abrupt but it is within a WG Chair's remit.
> But this list doesn't seem to be the answer because it's mostly about
> ietf process and the right technical people are definitionally going to
> be hit and miss.
That is indeed this list's current problem; hence, tsv-area might be
a better bet.
Regards
Brian
