Consensus based on reading tea leaves (was: Re: Alternative formats for IDs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I do appreciate the authors writing a draft, as opposed to participants who make a usual vague process change suggestion on ietf@xxxxxxxx and generate confused discussion that results from no two commenters having the same understanding of the proposed process change...

HOWEVER.

I can't imagine that ever encouraging the IESG to decide that they know what IETF consensus "really" is, while disregarding public comment, is ever going to be a good thing to do. The community guidance to the IESG for the past N (where N is at least 3) years has been that the IESG needs to request and respect public comment on an increasing number of topics. I believe that any IESG declaration of consensus based on something beside public comment would be appealable ("all the way to the ISOC BoD") as a process violation, and that it would be a reasonable basis for an AD recall filing.

I am also worried about the use of this precedent on other topics.

Sorry!

Spencer

   Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
   declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number
   of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list.  In that regard,
   Henrik Levkowetz posted the following comment
   (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg39170.html):

   "Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me
   that there are at least a few people who are adamantly against
   change.  I'm not at all convinced that a large majority feels this
   way.  A poll might reveal more than the relative proportions of
   highly engaged people voicing their views here."

   Judging consensus through a poll is sometimes difficult.  There is a
   vast "silent majority" that would support the proposed additional
   formats, or at least not oppose them, but will not express their
   opinion on the list.  It is much more likely to hear from the very
   vocal people who are opposed to the change.  That is, assuming 1000s
   of participants on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed
   'nays', even strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in
   favor of change.

No.  Either you have to judge consensus from what's experessed on the
mailing list, or you have to use some other means of soliciting *expressed* views. You MAY NOT assume that unvoiced views are biased in any direction, and then declare consensus based on such an assumption.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]