>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:20:39 -0500, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: AS> I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are AS> not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made, AS> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent AS> support for the document. And the question is: did all those people writing in read and understand the draft and fully understand the issue? Or are they just regurgitating a "do this" announcement. How do you weigh a bunch of uninformed responses against a fewer number of informed ones. Personally, I'm not sure I agree the draft is good to go precisely because I haven't read enough information on both the draft, the potential patent and the pseudo-grant so I haven't voiced my opinions about it (until now... whooops). We ask all the time in the IETF meetings "who's read the draft". We rarely follow up low-number responses with questions of "who believes it's ready for publication" when the number of readers is very low. That's the situation we're in now: a lot fewer people have read and understand the various documents than are weighing in on the subject. Do we consider consensus based on "+1" comments or based on the opinions of only the more informed readers. And what do we do when it becomes impossible to determine who is who? -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf