This is a VERY useful document, and I look forward to compelling my WG participants to read it, with a pop quiz afterwards. The only issue I see is its length; while dedicated IETFers won't have a problem reading such a lengthy document, the people who could benefit most - new, potential or casual participants - will give up early, I fear. Could we have someone take an editorial knife to it? Some of the descriptions of situations are quite long, and there's a fair amount of repetition in the document. Some of the paragraphs are quite long as well. I reckon 2-4 pages could be saved, making it appealing to a much wider audience. Beyond that, the only suggestion I'd make is an alternate title -- "Why We Hum." Or maybe "The Things We Hum And Do Not Say" (apologies to Jerry Maguire). Cheers, On 07/10/2013, at 8:03 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The document talks about ways in which consensus processes can be successfully run in the IETF. After the last few rounds of versions, I believe this document is ready to move forward. > > My goal is to publish it as an Informational RFC. It is an explanation of principles and how they can be applied to productively move IETF discussions forward. While there is no change to IETF processes or any presumption that guidance from this document must be followed, I have found the document very useful. It has been referred to numerous times in IETF and IESG discussions. Consensus is hard and many WG discussions have complex trade-offs and differing opinions. I believe having this document become an RFC would help us apply the useful principles even more widely than we are doing today. > > The abstract says: > > The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through > a consensus process, taking into account the different views among > IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on > technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run > by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals > like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our > actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are > letting the majority win the day, without consideration of minority > concerns. This document is a collection of thoughts on what rough > consensus is, how we have gotten away from it, and the things we can > do in order to really achieve rough consensus. > > Note (to be removed before publication): This document is quite > consciously being put forward as Informational. It does not > propose to change any IETF processes and is therefore not a BCP. > It is simply a collection of principles, hopefully around which > the IETF can come to (at least rough) consensus. > > The draft can be obtained from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus > > You should see a last call announcement soon, and both me and Pete look forward to your feedback. > > Jari > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/