Are you guys taking turns, saying the same thing over and over again?
For the record, I'm not taking sides in any of the current questions
about ASCII/Word/AmiPro/etc, or DKIM, or the other discussions filling
my inbox. I'm trying to come up with a way for the participants in
those discussions to determine if they are done yet.
I am proposing a formal construct, called a "Call for Concensus", or
appreviated as "CfC" (because I'm lazy and can't spell that third word
the same way two times in a row anyway), for a specific purpose: to
determine if we have reached an agreement during a discussion.
It is _not_ used _IN_ a discussion, it is used when the discussers are
tired of the endless circles that these discussions turn in, _AFTER_ all
the different options have been mentioned.
In order for such a test to work, it MUST be posted as a statement,
which can be agreed with, or not. Simple enough. In order to cut down
on the noise level, you word the statement such that it includes the
supposed-agreement. People who agree don't need to reply. People who
don't care, either from lack of expertise or apathy, don't need to
reply. ONLY PEOPLE WHO OBJECT to that statement should reply to the
CfC. If you have a rough idea of how many people received the CfC post,
and you can easily see how many people objected, then you can easily see
if your statement does, in fact, state a concensus agreement.
I don't see how this can be too complicated for people who create software.
The CfC is not part of the "discussion". It is a test to see if the
discussion has had a result.
Is this a bad idea? I don't think so, but I keep getting replies, from
differing posters, with differing words, that all evaluate to "But
someone will disagree, and then you can't tell...." Yes, you can.
There are only four meaningful groups of people here, the matrix of
care/don't care and agree/don't agree:
Anyone who disagrees with the CfC statement, but didn't reply, is too
apathetic to participate. Don't count them, because they themselves
don't think that their opinion is worth your time.
Anyone who agrees, and did reply, has trouble understanding
instructions like "Only reply to this CfC if you disagree". Given that,
should these people be making decisions for the group?.
Who's left? The two groups that we care about:
Anyone who disagrees, and replies, will have their voices heard,
because their opinion is the one asked for by the CfC. If their
objections (or volume) are significant, then the discussion will turn to
ways to make progress while satisfying their concerns.
Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say anything,
is fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support. The CfC
will stand or fall based upon the size of the "disagree and replied" group.
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is fair
to say that the majority either
was in favor, or at least acquiesced. At least, if people complain
later, you can say, "you should have spoken up when appropriate." (I
suppose, for symmetry, that the same could be said against a proposal
if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this must
be rare indeed.)
But, as soon as there are _any_ objections, then people could remain
silent saying to themselves "I agree" or "I don't care" or "I agree
with the objections, which have been much better stated than I could
do." You just don't know.
So, I regard it as improper to assume support either way from the
"silent majority" if there is
any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have consensus
in the face of objections, but
it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all the
people who remain silent.
Regards
Marshall
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf