On 13 July 2011 08:51, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Trying to gauge "(rough) consensus" by counting voiced opinions when an > issue has not been reliably determined to be non-technical and > non-procedural _is_ inappropriate. Note that the point of the paper is saying that people "feel" that there is a widely held opinion, even if it comes from few repeated voices and even if they are intellectually aware of the actual count. So even if there is no actual conscious opinion counting going on, our brains are doing it for us and it does influence us. I think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this science says that subjective measures can be influenced by repetition and even if chairs/ADs are aware of this fact. It shows that subjective measures are subject to manipulation. I think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this science says that subjective measures can be influenced by repetition and even if chairs/ADs are aware of this fact. It shows that subjective measures are subject to manipulation. I think there is an important message there for the IETF, because the establishment of consensus is not by any objective measure and this science says that subjective measures can be influenced by repetition and even if chairs/ADs are aware of this fact. It shows that subjective measures are subject to manipulation. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf