On 2/10/09 7:20 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are > not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made, > during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent > support for the document. Under classical consensus decision-making there's a prerequisite that the participants have some investment in the process itself and that they actively participate. Drive by "I'm against it!" posts almost certainly don't qualify as participation - there's absolutely no opportunity there for negotiation and compromise. I don't think I'm splitting hairs, here, or being process-y beyond what the situation requires. Consensus process can produce very good results when it's done well and it can produce crap and deadlock when it's not. My own opinion is that the IETF does consensus very, very badly indeed, in large part because there's some confusion about what it actually is. And frankly, weighing the "apparent support for the document" by virtue of the drive-bys is a lot more like voting than not. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf