Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Pete,

On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> I think it misses two
>> important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
>>
>> 1)  The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
>>       gauging consensus
>>    
> 
> Yeah, as I just replied to Tom, I think this is worth adding, probably
> in section 2 or 3.

great.

> 
>> 2) That some participants/chairs/I*s like seeing hands, and that's okay
>>    
> 
> Yes, this is directly said in section 4, paragraphs 4 & 5. What do you
> think is missing?

It says hum+hands. My point is hands-only is okay and can be essentially
equivalent to the "humming" described in your document.  I think it
would be valuable to make this point explicitly, as I essentially
everything else you say in the document.  And I completely agree with
your point that a show of hands (& a poll on the list) are not votes.

> 
>> There are different ways to achieve and determine consensus.  As stated
>> in RFC2418:
>>     Consensus
>>     can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
>>     which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
>>     of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
>>     better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
>>     consensus has been reached.
>>    
> 
> As I said in my reply to Dave, there's part of the above that I disagree
> with, or at least think is an oversimplification. But it definitely need
> citing.

got it, but as you say this document is Informational and doesn't
propose any change to IETF process, while RFC2418 is a BCP which does
define process.

Lou

> 
> pr
> 





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]