On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:49 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--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.
I haven't been involved in the IETF as long as you, but in my
experience the general pattern of "Issues are discussed and decided at
the meeting and then a mail is sent to the list asking for objections"
has been common for at least 20 years. While it's certainly possible
to do this badly (e.g., asking for consensus before the minutes are
up), as long as the list is given sufficient time and context to
weigh in, then this practice seems to me to be in line with both
the letter and spirit of 2418 S 3.4.
Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-
face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.
Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face
meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more
efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group
participants. In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that
its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.
-Ekr
experience the general pattern of "Issues are discussed and decided at
the meeting and then a mail is sent to the list asking for objections"
has been common for at least 20 years. While it's certainly possible
to do this badly (e.g., asking for consensus before the minutes are
up), as long as the list is given sufficient time and context to
weigh in, then this practice seems to me to be in line with both
the letter and spirit of 2418 S 3.4.
Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-
face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.
Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face
meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more
efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group
participants. In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that
its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.
-Ekr
