On 10/11/13 11:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Major issues: Section 4 says: "... members of any given working group ..." Working groups do not have members; they have participants. Please reword to avoid confusion on this point.
Done.
Minor issues: Section 4 says that humming should be the start of a conversation, not the end. However, it can be either. Using the document's example, the chair could ask, "Hum now if you cannot live with choice A." Silence confirms that rough consensus has been reached.
There was a line hidden in there about this, but I've clarified.
Section 6 tells about some pitfalls to avoid, but the hum can still be a very valuable tool to help a chair determine if the group has reached consensus.
It can be (and I've added some text along these lines), but it gets misused for these purposes all too often, which is a major theme of the document.
Further, a hum in a BOF is different.
As I said in my reply to Ted, I've made some attempt to address this, but also pointed out the downsides.
Nits: In section 2, the document says "... not appealing to some others." When I read it the firs time, the RFC 2026 definition of "appeal" jumped into my mind. That is not the intent here. Maybe it is just me. Please consider rewording, especially since the RFC 2026 meaning is used in Section 3.
I'll see if I can drum up a better synonym. pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478