(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)
grenville armitage wrote:
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post "Should we move to using MS Word?"
A simple yes/no question, with no default given by the poster. Those
are your words, not mine.
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts "No".
This is, in your example, the first "choice" available, since the
original question had no default/assumed answer.
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.
Thus we have a "discussion"
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.
My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default.
Please read your words again. Your example was an open question,
with no default, leading to a "discussion".
Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. Okay, maybe that's
because we don't use the same definitions for the words and phrases we
are passing back and forth.
You keep describing our "discussions", and I agree that, yep, that's
the way our discussions work. I keep trying to point out that this is
different from how we "call for concensus", and you keep going back to
"but that's not how our discussions work". You're right, because a
"discussion" is _different_ from a "call for concensus" (henceforth
CfC), and we will never be able to REACH a concensus if you can't tell
the difference. (and I think that this confusion is one of the IETF's
big problems)
For the sake of this discussion, here are a couple of working
definitions. Please let me know if you see a problem with them:
A "Discussion" has many speakers, many viewpoints, many issues, many
proposed solutions, and, well, discussion about them all, lasting for
(sometimes) a long time.
A "CfC" usually follows a "Discussion" and has ONE (count 'em)
statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or
decision, asking for agreement or disagreement. It may or may not be
bundled with justifying data or logic, as long as the readers can find
the CfC. This CfC is followed by a variable number of replies agreeing
or disagreeing with the statement. Once that is done, the group can
take the results of that CfC and move forward, with either another
discussion, or a further CfC, as seems useful.
If your example had been a _statement_ "We should move to MSWord", then
that would have worked for a CfC. (I believe that such a CfC would
collect a large number of "No"s, with many of them giving reasons.)
However, wording it as a question "Should we..." is asking for a
discussion, not a CfC. And we cannot ever reach a concensus if we can't
tell the two apart.
For the record, I believe that the Chair should issue a CfC on "We
should allow non-ASCII graphics to accompany IDs and RFCs." If, and
only if, that CfC passes, we should explore what format those graphics
might be.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf