I don't disagree. Counting heads is a blunt instrument for subtle questions. But there are cases where it's informative.
Brian
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Re: Voting Idea? (Was: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF DraftSubmission Toolset' to Informational RFC) Date: 2005-04-06 09:12 From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The free site I found says "voting"; of course, what the IETF can use such things for is only straw polls. But in a case like the present one, I think that is a reasonable way of finding out what the centre of gravity of opinion is.
In ASCII art: /\ Consensus: ____/ \___
/\ Rough Consensus ____/ \___/\___
Badly phrased question: ___/\____/\____/\____/\___
(I'm reasonably serious about that)
Maybe -- maybe not.
Here's what one IETF WG chair had to say (where "this topic" refers
to a specific issue under discussion in the WG):
----------------------
On the topic of voting: Especially on this topic, I think voting would be stupid. The decision is about rough consensus. One screaming person does not indicate that there is no rough consensus, but one or two well-reasoned arguments against a screaming huge crowd does. And a huge number of "I'd prefer X, but I couldn't care less" votes versus 2 or 3 well-argued "X will spell doom for the Internet, and Y will save it" votes *is* rough consensus for Y over X. So voting generally doesn't help me decide one way or the other that there is rough consensus.
-----------------------
In short, quality of argument trumps (if the chair is chairing) quantity. Voting (incl. as "straw polls") only measures quantity, not quality.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf