On 1/6/06 11:11 PM, "Sandy Wills" <sandy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 think part of the problem we're having with decision making (to the extent that we're having a problem with decision-making) is that too many people really don't understand consensus at all. Consensus process leads to decisions being made through synthesis and restatement, and by the time that the question is asked "Do we have consensus?" we should pretty much have consensus already. Consensus is not a form of voting with overwhelming results, and I think that's where you're going somewhat far afield. Sometimes I think the IETF should change its decision-making processes - if nothing else, consensus-style decision-making doesn't work that well when some number of participants don't share the same investment in the process itself. But even so, I think better training of both participants and chairs would probably solve the bulk of the problems that have come up and should be tried before the organization gives serious consideration to changing how decisions are made. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf