grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post "Should we move to using MS Word?"
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts "No". Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one
quick glance, see
two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against.
With which one does the silent majority agree?
Indeterminate, of course. This is why, as so many people have pointed
out time & time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed,
propositions on this list
a) MUST be kept simple, and
b) MUST include a default.
What you gave us is an example of a "discussion", which can include more
than one topic, including more than one possible answer. This should
not be confused with, or used as justification for, a claim of concensus.
Eventually, we will all be exhausted by this interminal discussion, and
someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with this job)
will post a simple statement and ask if the statement has concensus. No
multiple choice, no discussion, just statement. I hope it happens soon...
"The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text format, plus
WordStar version 2.0 of 4/1/1987. Henceforth, all posters suggesting MS
Word will be drug from their homes and stoned in the street."
People who agree will mumble "yeah" under their breath and otherwise
ignore the post. People who disagree will reply on the list. After two
weeks, someone will compare the size of the subscriber list to the
number of negative replies, and we'll all start gathering rocks together.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf