I agree that many don't understand how consensus is targeted. Suggest that the draft to be more related to participant discussions and reasonable disputes. However, IMHO, we need first enogh discussions to get to rough consensus, so the IETF WG Chairs should not ignore any input only after the *discussions* become repeated/non-productive. If there are discussions, then we should postpone the call for consensus, AB On 2/14/13 2:02 PM, SM wrote: > The IAB recently had a discussion about "bottom-up organizational > modes". If I am not mistaken (please correct me) the IETF is the only > organization that uses "humming". I would say that it works in the IETF > as it is part of the culture; it cannot be grafted on an organization. > There are cases when a show of hands can be used. The sentence that > follows the quoted text explains when to use "humming". 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 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. > It's not possible to resolve > an issue if the two sides are not ready to compromise. 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. 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. There's a huge issue here with education. And again, kudos to Pete for taking this on. It's a very steep hill. > There are different types of consensus; e.g. the consensus of the girls, > which is unappealable. Whut? Melinda