Quynh, I agree with Brian's pointer, but let me try a different answer to your (at least implied question). I recommend reading (or reviewing) that document, and probably reading its Conclusion (Section 8) again before reading the rest of this note (which I don't believe contradicts RFC 7282 in any way). I've seen WG chairs who I don't believe are doing a good job, or at least the job I think they should be doing. I've seen documents produced as having IETF consensus that I think are wrong or that ignore important issues (that type of disagreement is one reason why, at least when we are being careful, we talk about "rough consensus" rather than, e.g., complete agreement. I've also seen situations that it is easy to interpret as people in leadership roles abusing their authority or interpreting their personal experiences and beliefs as community (rough) consensus rather than looking carefully for the latter and focusing on carefully interpreting it. However, while those sorts of problems can seem like big deals or serious lapses in judgment when they occur -- and should perhaps get stronger responses from the community than they often do -- the reality is that, when the totality of the IETF's workload and output are considered, they are very rare. Most people believe that overall quality remains high (yourself included if I correctly understand your note). Details and a proposal or two whose rejection was arguably a mistake aside, we just have not figured out a way to do things better. I don't know if that makes you happier or not but that best way for you to ensure continuing quality of the results is to dig in on topics where you have interest or expertise and participate. If either Brian or Subramanian disagree with the above in any significant way, I look forward to hearing from them about why because, probably, we could all learn from the discussion. john --On Saturday, January 18, 2025 08:03 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quynh, > > In case you have not read it recently, I think that RFC 7282 "On > Consensus and Humming in the IETF" is an excellent discussion of > this question. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 18-Jan-25 07:37, Quynh Dang wrote: >> Hi S. Moonesamy, >> >> If you reviewed all of my messages, you would have noticed that I >> did not ask for any change. >> >> I have not seen a chair not doing a good job. In the past, many >> times I felt that the chairs (of different groups and at >> different meetings) were so stressed. >> >> If the "consensus" is that the people are happy with the current >> process, I'll become happier (I have always been happy with the >> IETF work). >> >> Regards, >> Quynh. >> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 12:46 PM S Moonesamy >> <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sm%2Bietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> Hi Quynh, >> >> [switched reply to other mailing list] >> >> At 09:37 AM 15-01-2025, Quynh Dang wrote: >> > I have not advocated against "rough consensus". >> > >> > The problem is that "rough consensus" is so broadly or >> > vaguely defined. So consensus calls can be made based on >> > inconsistent "policies" or "unknown rules/policies" and >> > many people might feel that they are treated unfairly in >> > many consensus calls and they could have a question in >> > their head: why did the chairs do that to me ? So the >> > problem makes the job of the chairs so hard and stressful. >> > >> > Defining a minimum percentage of votes to have the >> > consensus would take care of the problem and the chairs at >> > the IETF would love that. >> >> On one hand, it is easy to understand how a decision was taken >> when it is based on votes as people are generally familiar >> with the concept. On the other hand, people might view the >> decision-making as vague when it is said to have "rough >> consensus". This is where a person might view the >> decision-making as wrong. >> >> Here's a thread which mentioned voting: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/NY0IC2yJY8ejabMd3 >> -ISjv09sN4/ >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/NY0IC2yJY8ejabMd >> 3-ISjv09sN4/> I don't have any interest in the work. I also >> don't have a strong opinion of how the group of people do the >> work. Looking at it from the outside, I'd say that the group >> of people seem happy with how the group works. >> >> Regards, >> S. Moonesamy >>
