Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS <gash@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think you're referring to the comment (from a couple of people) that > the authors "ignored" a "consensus" to specify PDF profiles in the > proposed experiment. There's a bit of a "straw-man" here, in that I'm pretty sure that no two commenters said exactly that; but no matter -- that's not the point I mean to speak to. > However, we did not "ignore" anything. s/anything/any such thing/ > It was not clear to me (or the other co-authors) prior to the > -02 version that there was any "consensus" RE specifying PDF > profiles/formats/versions, Here's the point I wish to speak to. It is a perversion of the meaning of "consensus" to take the attitude that nothing in a draft needs to be changed unless there is "consensus" on the exact nature of the change. I'm seeing that usage among too many IETF participants; and it is _very_ annoying! The proper use of "consensus" process is to go through the excruciating pain to reach near-unanimity _once_ to produce a base document; thereafter discussing _small_ changes and waiting for reasonable "consensus" before applying small changes. Where there isn't "consensus" to make a change, consensus theory holds that the group isn't yet ready for the change (and needs time to learn to accept it). Consensus theory evolved in response to well-known failings of democratic decision-making: in particular the tendency to random-walk as there are small shifts around a nearly-even split. In my experience consensus theory works well for a very large set of issues in group dynamics -- but not all situations. The difficulty lies in determining whether one is faced with a situation in which consensus theory _cannot_ work, or merely a situation in which too few folks understand consensus theory. This determination becomes arbitrarily difficult as personal agendas of people who _do_ understand consensus theory cause them to act as if they don't. :^( I will not attempt to offer a solution here; but I would appreciate it as a personal favor if folks would stop using the word "consensus" to refer to things quite alien to consensus theory. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf