On 07/13/2011 11:00, Fred Baker wrote:
To my mind, it's not a matter of voting (how many people think A, how many
people think B, ...) and not a matter of volume (which would accept a
filibuster as a showstopper). It's a question of the preponderance of opinion
("agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity, solidarity;
formal concord") coupled with listening carefully to those who disagree and
determining whether their arguments actually make sense and point up an
issue. I will recognize a single person's point at issue if it appears that
they are not being listened to or their issue dealt with. If they are simply
hammering a point, and their point is incorrect, I will note that they have
been hammering an incorrect point ("even though you are sending one email in
four in a long thread and are expressing extreme concern about a draft
because it does ____, I will overlook your objections because it doesn't do
that.") and move on.
Fred has stated in a much more elegant and complete way what I was
trying to get across the other day when I said "consensus is not the
same as universal agreement."
And I'd also like to, um, repeat support for the concepts discussed in
the article Brian posted. I actually studied social psych. a bit in
college and even way back then these ideas were well understood. Deeply
ingrained human tendencies on both individual and group levels really
militate against what most people would consider to be rational,
objective thought on just about any topic. It gets worse geometrically
when it's something about which you care deeply.
An interesting site that approaches these topics from a fun, although
comparatively rigorous viewpoint is http://youarenotsosmart.com/. Of
particular interest to this group are the articles on confirmation bias,
and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Ietf mailing list