On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>> *and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing* >> >> I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit >> unnerving. Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't. >> When a person's opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged >> exclusively by "do I know this person" then you have an Old Boys >> Club, not an open body. > > Chris, I think Pete meant that if he happens to know the personal > context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to > it (because he knows the person has been following the discussion, > knows what that person's concerns have been in past threads, etc.). He > is not saying that you need to be part of the club in order to gain a > hearing, only that if he doesn't know you then a mere +1 carries less > (or no) weight with him. I hope Pete meant something a bit more than that. In specific, I hope he meant: if he happens to know the personal context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to it, but if he doesn't know the personal context, then he needs to put effort into finding it out That is, in a WG where you are leading a consensus call, if you get a significant number of +1s or -1s from people who haven't participated in the conversation to date, it is your responsibility to try to find out why. "I just got started" is a perfectly good reason, as is "I have been following this silently but this is the first thing I thought was important"; "I was told to join the list and vote" is also context that is good to know. All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that started this thread. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf