I think that this I-D is flawed and should not become an RFC. It has
several implicit presumptions that I think wrong.
1) It does not state its target audience until, perhaps, the reference
in the Conclusions, to WG Chairs. It makes no mention of the consensus
calls made by ADs, such as at IETF Last Call, which I think far more
important. If a WG Chair calls it wrong, there are ADs and IESG who may
put
things right. When an AD does so, it may be time to abandon hope; and
it is some, a few, of the consensus calls made by ADs at IETF Last Call
that I have thought plain wrong, more so than those by WG Chairs. Are
ADs assumed to be above and beyond the considerations in this I-D:-(
2) There is an extensive discussion on the show of hands and the hum.
What technology allows you to conduct those on a mailing list? The
fundamental rule of the IETF, for me, is that business is conducted on
the mailing list. What happens at meetings some find useful, and it may
be the quickest way to make progress on thorny issues, but the consensus
call belongs on the mailing list. Unless this I-D is intending to
subvert that.
3) References to working groups with 100 active participants sound like
a chimera. I track quite a number of lists, and some have about five
active participants. (Some Working Group Last Calls attract one or even
zero responses; the reactions of chairs to this is interesting and
varies widely). Even the busiest lists, v6ops and tcpm, for me, do not
remotely approach 100 active participants.
4) "Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough
consensus". Can you see the presumption in that? Read on and the
following text makes it clear that five are 'right' and one hundred
'wrong', but you are presuming that "for" is the right answer. The
right answer to a consensus call is a consensus,which can be "against",
as much as "for", something that does not seem to be contemplated here.
5) Good WG chairs, and happily there are plenty of them, make their
presumptions plain, as in asking for information about implementations
at or around judging consensus. The views of someone who has
independently produced rough code is then likely to outweigh those of a
dozen people who have not, so three such expressing a view in one
direction will prevail over several dozen who have not in the opposite
direction. (This is all right as far as it goes, but I would like the
views of users and operators to count for even more, since it is they
who have the most to gain or lose; but sadly, their representation here
is small and often not apparent). You quote Dave Clark's aphorism but
then ignore half of it.
6) The document is strangely silent about what the vast mass of the
IETF who are not WG Chairs might do to help reach a consensus,
such as express an opinion, clearly, technically; else, perhaps, keep
quiet.
7) As has been said before when documents like this are up for
discussion, the IETF is an organisation of engineers and, for the most
part, we do it rather well. Managing and leading loose and diverse
groups of people is more psychology or sociology than technology, at
which we are mostly amateurs. We then go beyond our capabilities and
get it wrong. As here.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus
> On 10/6/13 7:30 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > This is a VERY useful document, and I look forward to compelling my
WG participants to read it, with a pop quiz afterwards.
> >
>
> I've been exceedingly satisfied to hear this sort of thing from you
and
> the other folks who posted and talked to me about this.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I would be really disappointed by this. Indeed, my primary target was
> not at all new or casual participants; it was really intended for the
> dedicated folks and the chairs. I hope this is the start of a serious
> discussion in the IETF, not a primer for how the IETF works at a high
> level. For newer folks, I'm fine with the idea that some of this can
be
> either incorporated into the Tao or the newcomer's orientation, or
> separated into a smaller primer document. But I really believe the
long
> form is needed for real discussions among folks in the community.
>
> > 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).
> >
>
> And here I was originally paying homage to Wittgenstein, though it
even
> got too long for that. Taken under advisement.
>
> Now, off to tackle Dave's excellent (and extensive) review.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
>
>