--On Friday, August 2, 2019 13:52 -0700 Mark Nottingham
<mnot@xxxxxxxx> 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.
Mark,
This is really not part of the GitHub topic (hence the changed
subject line) because it applies whether a versioning or
tracking systems is used or not, but it may be worth noting that
there is a slippery slope attached to your comment above.
While I don't want to split hairs over what "form" might mean,
we used to insist that significant issues be aired in sufficient
detail that decisions were actually made and consensus
determined on those mailing lists. I've seen situations in the
last few years in which a discussion occurs and decisions are
essentially made in a meeting and made with or without adequate
attention to the views of those who are not in the room. After
that, the request to the list takes a form not much different
from "anyone who doesn't agree with the meeting decision needs
to speak up". That request may come before there are minutes or
a good summary of the meeting other than the recording of the
video feed (if that isn't delayed too, as it sometimes has
been). The subsequent near-silence from the combination of
those who agree and those who don't feel informed enough to have
an opinion can be construed as confirmation on the list, but it
certainly is not within the spirit of those rules.
Perhaps it is time to change those rules but, if so, let's do it
explicitly rather than silently drifting from "determined and
confirmed in the mailing list" toward "determined in a meeting"
followed by pro forma mailing list confirmation. And, if we do
so, let's incorporate the content of several other threads by
reference and consider the tradeoffs of making f2f meeting
attendance more important.
best,
john
