Your argument seems to have nothing to do with design teams.
You seem to be arguing that WG chairs should use some other standard to determine WG rough consensus.
It is already the case that WGs are expected to pay attention to technical objections even if only one person raises the objection.
It is already the case that chairs try very hard to make it clear that silence is not agreement.
However, there are limits on what chairs can do. If 6 people
speak up in favor, with actual reasons for supporting something,
and no one speaks up against it with any reasons, then the chairs
are likely to conclude that there is WG support even if there are
100 people on the email list.
If you have another alternative to suggest, please state it
clearly.
Yours,
Joel
PS: And many chairs (I hesitate to say "most" since my window
like all of us is on a small portion of the IETF) are quite clear
when design teams report that said report is simply input for the
WG to evaluate. this is helped by many cases where the WG report
is an I-D of the form draft-<teamname>-<wgname>-topic
like most other individual drafts before they are adopted by a WG.
On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 6:31 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/16/23 12:10, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
[.....}
> I always ask when I am in any IETF_WG who are our WG participants? the
> answer will be the posters to the WG_list or the subscribed to the
> WG_list, so that is not. The subscribe are 50 participants, and the
> arguing participants on the WG_list are 5, but still when one disagree
> and 4 are agreeing and we can add two draft_authors agreeing then the
> chair will say will we have consensus of agreeing even though only 6
> agree from 50, so where is the other 43 participants. The WG_chair
> should make sure at least 25 participants agree then yes there is
> Consensus.
Consensus is judged by those who speak up. The total number of list
subscribers doesn't matter much, because it's fairly normal to have lots
of "watchers". Their silence should not be considered as either support
or lack of support.
Those who speak up are few WG participants and usually they are the ones who direct/request the design teams (DT) and Interim_Groups (IG) but not the IETF WG. Also we need to define what watching means when we are using WG list (e.g. some WG give a month or less to see consensus of adoption agreement). This thread can be arguing that IG has no much watching because it excludes others. However, I don't believe that it is correct to say remotely_watching can be defined while not making watching easy to track information/signals.
I understand that your opinion is the ietf_practice, so I am arguing cases (while considering the DT or IG cases) that that is not fair enough especially when we have _one_ = 1 disagree against 6 agreeing and 43 silence (i.e. more not fair when most of 6 agreeing were part within DT or Interim_group decisions). For example, we had a discussion last week about one security_BCP and excluded one disagreement very easily with no good track within WG by majority silence.
IMO that situation/case is not having enough consensus only if we require the use of ietf_datatrackers to such disagreements and agreements, so that each speaking_up/input persons are responsible and known by IETF/WG and can be future_tracked. If all information is known and trackable then ok I don't mind that silence_or_busy of 43 does not matter because in future they can follow disagreements and can adjust if errors occur.
AB
