(Original sent to ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org was spam trapped, thanks
for adding the posting address.)
----------------Forwarded from Usefor.
"Dan Kohn" <dan(_at_)dankohn(_dot_)com> wrote in part:
Here, I believe, is the crux of the disagreement between the working
consensus of usefor and the unanimous agreement of email folks from
ietf-822.
Usefor recently conducted a straw poll [1] in which raw UTF-8 headers
barely won out [2] over using 2047/2231. (Specifically, in the #1 vs.
#5 vote, the tally was 9 to 8.) The chair, Dave Barr, declared "rough
consensus" [3] and suggested the group should move forward on that
basis.
I suggest to the usefor chair that the group should conduct the poll
again, based on a new piece of information. Specifically, they've seen
the applicable area director react in such a viscerally negative fashion
[4] that it is nearly impossible to imagine anything resembling the
current usefor approach being approved by the IESG. I.e., the backward
compatibility issue is nowhere near as small as the group seems to
believe.
I disagree with the consensus of the recent Usefor poll, too.
But, in the recent Usefor poll, the implementation options and
their consequences were very cleary explained.
The likely IETF responses were discussed on list as well. The poll
participants were expected to factor in their predictions of what
the IETF would do. (I think the poll results definitely reflect that,
since the poll ended at a different conclusion than the
August poll. Better conclusion IMHO, too.)
But I think the poll result is not questionable. The poll results must
be the guide for the attempt at making progress, unless a repoll
can be justified. Some reasons for that might be:
1. a flaw in the poll (an option was not in fact as it was presented)
2. a flaw in the voting (voters not understanding the system,
which I think did happen in one case, based on my understanding
of his previous postings to the WG list, but the outcome would not
change) or a flaw in someone's reading of the text at each option.
3. rejection of the result by a higher authority (which is not the same
as a strong comment from an AD who knows what the draft
is by hearsay or in summary.)
4. clear evidence that poll results are not an accurate
reflection of the larger Internet community beyond Usefor.
(And this may be the case. How can we tell?)
The Usefor poll result may be surprising, or not match what
you think is obvious (I think so too) but covering
already covered discussion (e.g. what gateways
will/will not do, what the IESG will/will not approve)
is not useful. Usefor did all that already (more than
once for most issues) and most importantly, the recent poll
text accurately reflected the major issues and implications
of each choice. (I am very glad we decided to use that
format for the poll.)
Forrest