Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The inner comment, does not match my memory of the discussions.

Theodore Tso wrote:
> Attributed to Fred Baker:
>> I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion  
>> that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a  
>> 90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus. I think we  
>> have to say what the role and reach of the confirming body is, which  
>> may require us to think hard about what it means to have "rough  
>> consensus".
> 
> I'm not sure it was 90/10 consensus; at least in this recent
> discussion, there certainly have been a rather wide range of opinions
> on this list, from people like Mike St. John's with one view, and
> Steve Kent with another.
> 
> 						- Ted

There were a number of issues on which no consensus was reached, or on 
which there was not consensus to make a change.  I don't think any of 
those were anywhere near as close as 90/10.  Some of the "don't change" 
conclusions were probably a significant majority against the change. 
But I don't think there was ever a case that I saw where I thought 80 
(much less 90) percent of the room wanted something, but the chairs 
ruled that there was no consensus.
My concern about re-opening the document is in fact that opinions were 
very divided.  Getting agreement on any change is going to be a lot of 
work, if it succeeds at all.  Try to get rough consensus on clear words 
on something as divisive as how much oversight the confirming bodies 
should perform seems a recipe for failure.

Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]