Hi Melinda,
At 16:37 14-02-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It seems to me that this kind of misses the point. Consensus-
based decision making is not simply not voting, but it's processy
and a mechanism for reaching a decision collaboratively. Unfortunately
Yes (not including the first sentence).
it's been the case for a very long time that the IETF does not
actually do that, that participants don't understand what it
means to use "rough consensus" for reaching decisions, working
group chairs often don't understand, IESG members often don't
understand, etc. So if people in the process tend to see it
as a particular variant on voting, and they're incorrect, it's
probably a mistake to use mechanisms that tend to support the
incorrect view. Hand raising looks so much like voting that
it's confusing.
Consensus-based decision-making is expensive. The IETF has settled
for lesser as it is less work for the decision-maker and less work
for the other side. The IETF proudly presents:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.
And that created a belief system.
Working groups use polls and "hand raising" nowadays as a disguise
for voting. It is understandable (to me) that it confuses
participants. One might gain an external view of the IETF by taking
a look at draft-bollow-ectf-06.
This is probably *the* principal problem in consensus
decision-making. The participants have to be invested
in making the process work, and in having a mutually
satisfactory outcome. That's very, very often not the
case in the IETF, and I'm enthusiastic about Pete's draft
as a result - as much about culture transfer as about
process normativity and improvement.
Agreed. I like your usage of "mutually satisfactory outcome".
In some sense what's under discussion actually exists in
the IESG, with DISCUSSes being blocking, etc. The difference,
of course, is that at some level there's an expectation of
altruism from IESG members but not of IETF participants.
Agreed.
Whut?
I should have written "not subject to appeal". It means that the
appeal will be rejected unless there is a miracle. In the IETF there
is, for example, consensus by exhaustion. A girl explained to me the
meaning of "consensus of the girls". I don't know whether it is
applicable to the IETF.
Here's an unrelated story. A group of people go out to dinner at a
fancy restaurant. There is an implicit understanding that everyone
shares the bill. However, after the last course you find out that
one of the persons in the group does not have any money. What would
you do an why (an answer is not expected)?
Consensus is not necessarily about compromise; it can be about
finding the third way.
Regards,
-sm