On 5/31/07 2:49 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think this is more evidence that we need more flexibility and
good sense, not more rigid rules.
Well, what's under description really isn't consensus
decision-making processes - what's being argued is a sort
of voting. Rather than getting stuck on definitions, though,
I think it's probably worthwhile to frame the discussion
in terms of intentions - what the original intent was, what
the current intent is, whether or not there's a mismatch,
and how to get the process to look like what's intended, if
it currently doesn't (and wow, do I think it does not).
Arguing over percentages doesn't, I think, go very far
towards figuring those things out. I think I understand
what used to be intended but I'm not sure I can articulate
it, but I do think that the problems around decision-making
come down to a few things:
1) not-that-great decision facilitation skills on the
part of some chairs and leaders;
2) too many participants who'd be happy shutting down the
whole process rather than accomodating a decision they
don't agree with
3) the organization is just too large for a touchy-
feely decision-making style.
But it seems to me that if you're going to go with some form
of voting, and that's what's happening in practice, it would
be better to design a fair voting process. If you're going
try to do consensus better you have to figure out how to deal
with the kvetches in a way that doesn't shut out dissent while
still allowing decision-making to move forward. Either one is
hard to do but I'm not sure that doing nothing is an option.
Ietf mailing list