On 8/2/19 4:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I fully agree that an issues list is necessary when things get complicated. But IETF rules
*require* consensus to be formed on the mailing list.
I think "formed" is stated too strongly; we often "form" consensus in a meeting, and confirm it on-list.
If the consensus reached in a WG meeting is a good one, one that
accommodates the diversity of concerns from the wider WG, the in-person
consensus will usually carry over to the list without many changes.
However, if the list is pressured to accept a consensus that was reached
in a meeting, I'd argue that it's a process violation.
That creates a bit of a problem
for any issues list technology, not just GitHub. So far, I haven't seen a perfect
solution.
If we hold perfect as a bar to using something, we won't get anything done; as many have pointed out, both in-person meetings as well as mailing lists are far from perfect.
Use of avian carriers isn't perfect either - so should we replace
mailing lists with avian carriers? (with or without QoS)
Just because neither X nor Y is perfect does not mean we should replace
X with Y.
Keith
