Sandy, What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, the implication in the wording is that people disagreeing with a proposal will post and people disagreeing with them will not. This is the case - as you suggest - when there is a clear "default outcome". In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change is not the "default outcome" in most human organizations. That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go with a change as there are people prepared to make changes. Consequently, it is at least as valid to assume that - particularly when a proposal represents a departure from status quo - that people may not be responding because they agree with the _objections_ already made and _also_ do not want to add to the general hub-bub. Consequently, if we see 10-20 people posting in favor of a _specific_ proposal and similar numbers posting against that same _specific_ proposal, then it is out of line for us to assume that any particular opinion is indicated by silence. Note that it is _very_ important to distinguish support for a particular change from support for the idea that some change is required. For example, if you have well over 100 people who all agree that change is required, and only 20 who argue that no change is required, you have to evaluate the agreement for a specific change (or at least a specific change direction) rather than a general discontent with status quo. If no more than 5 or 10 people agree to a specific proposal, then the net effect is a consensus for the status quo (better the devil you know). As one of the people arguing for status quo, I can tell you that it is not that I am happy with it. It is because I do not see a reasonably well supported alternative to status quo being proposed. In fact, a big part of the discussion right now stems from the fact that a lot of people have not really understood exactly what the status quo is. People who believe that they cannot submit an ID containing complex graphics in some form other than text, clearly do not realize that this is not the case. I like the quote about "coffee", by the way... -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Sandy Wills [mailto:sandy@xxxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:48 PM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: 'Yaakov Stein'; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus" --> --> Gray, Eric wrote: --> --> > "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." --> --> While I can't speak for everyone else, this seems correct --> to me. "Do I --> have anything useful or enteresting to add?" and "Do I --> think that my --> input will change the output?" must both evaluate to "Yes" --> before I post --> to any discussion. I occasionally post for humor or interest, but --> generally I follow the discussion and stay out of it unless --> I believe it --> to be going badly awry. --> --> To be blunt, do we want every question to be answered by several --> thousand AOL "Me too"'s? The silent masses are silent because they --> don't have anything useful to add, and believe that an --> endless stream of --> agreements would do nothing useful except test our bandwidth. --> --> We do, on the other hand, chime in when necessary. So, --> it is "good" --> and "right" and "fair" to assume that a public question --> with a default --> answer has concensus, if the only response is a minor --> negative one. I, --> and I believe many others, will simply move on to the next --> post when we --> see the question, if we agree with the default answer. --> --> A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 --> readers, and we --> post the question --> --> "Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes." --> --> then we can expect a small number of disagreements, a --> small number of --> arguments from readers who didn't understand the question, a small --> number of AOL's, a small number of "Of course, you twit! --> Why are you --> wasting our time with this?" and nothing else. The vast --> majority of the --> readers will not reply, because they agree with the default --> answer, and --> they have other things to do. --> If there is a reader who disagrees in his mind, but is --> constrained by --> cultural conditioning or natural manners from speaking out, --> how are we --> supposed to coax his "better way" from this reader? We --> have already --> posited that he/she/it won't speak up. --> I submit that the IETF culture should, by policy, assume --> that anyone --> subscribed to an IETF list will speak out on any question --> if he/she/it --> thinks it right. --> --> > The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing --> > of the supposed opinions of the silent. --> --> Yes, _but_ anyone who agrees will not argue. You will only --> get argument --> from those who disagree with the post. Unless you want to --> change the --> culture here to require an answer from every reader, on --> every question, --> thus adding significantly to our daily workload. I'd rather not. --> --> -- --> Unable to locate coffee. --> Operator halted. --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf