Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Gray, Eric wrote:

	It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have
no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying
attention.
(rest of post snipped)

Here I must become two-faced.

   Personally, I agree with you.  Often, there are many shades
of grey between the white and black binary choices.  Often,
being able to communicate those shades of grey will be essential
to creating a usable compromise.

   Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the
long-time IETF participants that they never take votes.  All they
do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options
to simple binary choices.  Thus, my attempt to create a binary
method for asserting and testing a claim of concensus.

   I truly believe that we will have to go to some kind of multiple-
choice voting system to reach decisions in these multi-valued cases.
  We have already seen a couple of examples on this list, where
someone set up an opinion poll on the web, and later reported the
results.  Of course, in order for us to actually use them, they
would have to be hosted by the IETF, or the "winners" of any poll
would spend the rest of their lives fighting off charges of cheating.

--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]