RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

["Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

Yaakov,

 

    Here's the text that says "all that"...

 

"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."

 

    The clear implication here is that we could choose to regard

the 20 expressed 'nays', even  strong nays, as atypical among

the silent majority - if that assumption suits our purpose.  Or, we

could assume the reverse...

 

    The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing

of the supposed opinions of the silent.

 

--

Eric

---

From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:25 PM
To: Gray, Eric; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

>   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, either
way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of
the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.

Wow, did we say all that?

 

All we are saying is that for the issue we are discussing

there is no WG. The only list that is open to its discussion

is the general list, where there is no support.

 

However, quite a large number of people who actively participate

in IETF WGs (people who are interested in working on technical topics,

but not on the internal workings of the IETF) who want the process

changed.

 

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.

 

I fail to see how this is equivalent to allowing authors or chairs

to decide for themselves what should be done.

 

Y(J)S

 

_______________________________________________

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