Sandy, My point - as may be clearer in other posts - is that the first question "do we want change" is a no-op at best. Change is natural and inevitable whether we want it or not. The first useful question is - paraphrasing what Brian said - what do we need that we do not already have? All of us have "needs" that are not satisfied by what we have - hence the inevitability of change. But it is not useful, nor realistic, for any of us to assume that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help us satisfy our individual "needs." So the question becomes "Is there a common subset of our collective individual needs that a large subset of affected people agree on, that cannot be satisfied by what we have now?" IMO, that is the question we keep coming back to... -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Sandy Wills [mailto:sandy@xxxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:34 PM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus" --> --> Gray, Eric wrote: --> --> > Sandy, --> > --> > 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. --> --> I think that there is also a very strong element of emotional --> attachment to any system or solution, from those people who --> had a hand --> in creating it (Certainly, I'm just as guilty of this as --> the next guy!). --> Any job is harder if you have to change your tools every --> time you get --> used to them. --> It's also true that some people will object to anything --> in front of --> them, simply because it was done by someone else. --> We also have the "religious" responses, both pro and con, where --> someone either approves (or disapproves) of it simply --> because of the --> source. We've all seen "It's gotta be good, Jon Postel --> wrote it", as --> well as "I'll cut my wrists before I use MS software" --> --> It appears that, if we want to judge solution-quality --> by mob volume, --> we need to find some way to separate the emotional --> responses from the --> reasoned responses. Unfortunately, I don't have one handy. --> --> > 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. --> --> ...And we are back to what has been said many times --> already. "Do we --> want to change? Answer yes/no" and "What do we want to --> change to?" are --> _not_ completely separable. You admit that you aren't --> happy about the --> status quo, but will still answer "No" to the first --> question because you --> don't trust us as a community to come up with a sane answer to the --> second question. --> --> The only quick and easy solution I see would be a --> multiple-choice --> question, perhaps on a web site, with options like: --> --> A) The world is perfect. Change nothing. --> B) I hate our system, but don't trust you bozos. Change nothing. --> C) Change to cunieform-and-clay, for everything. --> D) Change to marble for ID submission, and MS Word '95 for RFC --> publication. --> etc, etc, etc. --> --> I choose to _NOT_ volunteer to write and host this website. --> --> > --> > I like the quote about "coffee", by the way... --> --> Thanks! While it's not original with me, I certainly still --> remember the --> pain involved with the source "Unable to locate COMMAND.COM --> - Processor --> halted" --> --> -- --> Unable to locate coffee. --> Operator halted. --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf