Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

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

 



Yaakov Stein wrote:

>   However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion

(snip)

We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary
meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on this list.
Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people who prefer
working in the terminal room or touring in the evenings,
but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding out what
MOST IETF participants want than only reading this list.

Perhaps we can move past the discussion of what
you originally proposed or did not propose. That
does not seem very productive. And it must feel
frustrating to get criticism for something that you
did not propose.

FWIW, I believe that what you suggest above for using
the plenary is the best way to determine IETF consensus
for some IETF-encompassing issues. (With a follow-up
on this list of course, but unless that generates hundreds
of responses, its unlikely to make a difference to what
the room thought. And there should be some preparation
in the list prior to the meeting, like announcing that people
should read these drafts and that certain questions are
going to be asked.)

--Jari


_______________________________________________

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]