Sandy,
experience shows that you would only create more traffic. The smart
people who support the statement will not answer your call, but will
comment what those who object will answer. As I doubt you can word a
statement in such a way people who object may simply answer "no".....
There are ways to reach a true consensus, to address the users
expectations, to come with neatly finished documents, etc. They are
not the IETF ways. And they would not produce RFCs.
There is a growing consensus the general architecture is to change.
This includes the architecture of the Internet SSDOs. PESCI is/was
(?) an effort into that direction. IAB-discuss was another one. NSF's
GENI is another one. WSIS' IGF will probably propose another one.
Grassroots efforts are all over. There are too many interests,
habits, egos, creeds involved in the IETF. WG consensus by exhaustion
+ IETF consensus by disinterest + IESG consensus by inability to
share in every thing (the new architecture should be _mastered_ by a
"standard" participant in one month training). This is at least a
working status quo.
But nothing prevents you to create an ietf-poll.org site. To try to
summarise the debates at hand as a single statement, with a
"placet/non placet/placet juxta modum". To report the current results
(I think you cannot advertise your site, but you can report in a
debate such a poll). If this helps, it will take over. If it does
not, I suspect you will have gained experience towards other possibilities.
NB: I think the most important response for a consensus is "placet
juxta modum". There is _no_ consensus if there is a small reasonable
number of them (unsatisfied supporters). They also remove the idea of
a "winner", except general consensus, because they show "NP" people,
some of their positions are listen to (without detailling). And show
"P" people they are not the truth owners they often think they are. I
tend to think that if we could force a vote on the IETF current
system, "PJM" responses would be overwhelming.
All the best.
jfc
At 18:52 06/01/2006, Sandy Wills wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf