Combined response:
On 2007-05-31 21:33, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
The alternative - a WG chair who tells the working group that the apparent WG consensus on the mailing list is being overruled because of anonymous objections that the WG chair cannot share with the WG, or because of private objections that the WG chair is "channeling" from a back room - would make voting seem reasonable (or, to use Mark Allman's characterization in another thread, "seem charming").
I have to differ. This doesn't make voting seem reasonable; it makes
secrecy seem unreasonable.
On 2007-05-31 21:40, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If the wg chair is also on the iesg the appeals process is fatally compromised and littigation may be the only realistic prospect for redress.
Not at all. That is why ADs and IAB members recuse from appeals in
which they are materially concerned.
On 2007-05-31 22:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
One thing that occurs to me is that in my initial message I implicitly
felt that the room hands/hums were a more accurate assessment of
consensus than the list. I guess that I should fess up that I've always
felt that the "consensus is determined on the list" is something of a
charming myth.
I don't think people unable to travel to meetings would agree. Since our
objective is to discover technical problems with a proposed consensus,
I think it's essential to allow any netizen to raise problems. One
email technical comment pointing out a serious flaw has far more weight
than a hundred people in a room going "mmmmmmm".
On 2007-05-31 23:07, Andy Bierman wrote:
I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in
an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
It promotes indecision and inaction.
I think the ability of some other SDOs to take go/no go decisions on
unpublished documents by a fixed deadline, based on corporate voting,
is a major flaw. It promotes superfical review and flawed documents.
On 2007-06-01 01:14, Andy Bierman wrote:
I don't understand why such a comment needs to be private.
Once the issue comes to light in the WG, it is no longer going
to be private.
You are assuming the Chair can and should be a proxy for a
WG member who wishes to remain anonymous. I disagree.
Why is this a problem? Again, our goal is to discover technical
flaws (or make technical improvements) in drafts. What does it
matter if someone has good reason to request anonymity and to use
the AD (or anyone else) as a proxy?
On 2007-06-01 04:09, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I think a fair vote requires
- a clear definition of who can vote
Which is fundamentally impossible in the IETF.
On 2007-06-01 04:22, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Can anyone point to me where it is written that voting at a meeting is
the decision making process when rough consensus (hum or whatever) has
been inconclusive?
Definitely, nowhere. But there is a model that has been used
where a WG agrees *by rough consensus* to accept an arbitrary decision
method when a technical rough consensus cannot be reached. Example:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46040.html
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf