Consensus can be achieved in two ways
The first is that everyone understands the issues in the same way and are agreed on a common approach.
The second is that people would prefer not to face unfortunate facts and so they agree to ignore them and get the squeaky wheels to shut up.
Now we could continue to discuss how the sky might fall in if we admit that the IETF process emperor has no clothes, but that seems a somewhat unproductive use of everyone's time.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/29/10 5:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:I think there's a sentimental attachment to it. That said,
So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not
following?
I suppose if I were in your position I'd be asking myself
why I'm still whacking away at the same stuff, still being
combative, still failing to build anything remotely
resembling consensus, and yet I'm not changing my own behavior that
not only doesn't seem to be working at all but has been suggested
to constitute a DOS attack on at least one working group.
If you can figure that one out maybe you'll have a better
handle on why other people aren't modifying their approaches
to problems, either.
Melinda
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf