Being a WG chair seems like hard work. Executing well on the objectives in RFC 7282 doesn't always seem like the easiest thing. LL > On Jan 17, 2025, at 12:03 PM, 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/NY0IC2yJY8ejabMd3-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
