On 5/31/07 2:49 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this is more evidence that we need more flexibility and > good sense, not more rigid rules. Well, what's under description really isn't consensus decision-making processes - what's being argued is a sort of voting. Rather than getting stuck on definitions, though, I think it's probably worthwhile to frame the discussion in terms of intentions - what the original intent was, what the current intent is, whether or not there's a mismatch, and how to get the process to look like what's intended, if it currently doesn't (and wow, do I think it does not). Arguing over percentages doesn't, I think, go very far towards figuring those things out. I think I understand what used to be intended but I'm not sure I can articulate it, but I do think that the problems around decision-making come down to a few things: 1) not-that-great decision facilitation skills on the part of some chairs and leaders; 2) too many participants who'd be happy shutting down the whole process rather than accomodating a decision they don't agree with 3) the organization is just too large for a touchy- feely decision-making style. But it seems to me that if you're going to go with some form of voting, and that's what's happening in practice, it would be better to design a fair voting process. If you're going try to do consensus better you have to figure out how to deal with the kvetches in a way that doesn't shut out dissent while still allowing decision-making to move forward. Either one is hard to do but I'm not sure that doing nothing is an option. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf