Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and 
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)

grenville armitage wrote:

> Sandy Wills wrote:
>
> > grenville armitage wrote:
> >
> > > However, consider this case: you post "Should we move to using MS Word?"
A simple yes/no question, with no default given by the poster.  Those 
are your words, not mine.
> > > and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts "No".
This is, in your example, the first "choice" available, since the 
original question had no default/assumed answer.
> > > Over the next few minutes to
> > > hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will 
> > > receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one 
> > > quick glance, see
> > > two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against.
Thus we have a "discussion"

> > > With which one does the silent majority agree?
> > Indeterminate, of course.  This is why, as so many people have pointed 
> > out time & time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed, 
> > propositions on this list
> >    a) MUST be kept simple, and
> >    b) MUST include a default.
>
> My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default.
   Please read your words again.  Your example was an open question, 
with no default, leading to a "discussion".

   Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough.  Okay, maybe that's 
because we don't use the same definitions for the words and phrases we 
are passing back and forth.
   You keep describing our "discussions", and I agree that, yep, that's 
the way our discussions work.  I keep trying to point out that this is 
different from how we "call for concensus", and you keep going back to 
"but that's not how our discussions work".  You're right, because a 
"discussion" is _different_ from a "call for concensus" (henceforth 
CfC), and we will never be able to REACH a concensus if you can't tell 
the difference.  (and I think that this confusion is one of the IETF's 
big problems)
For the sake of this discussion, here are a couple of working 
definitions.  Please let me know if you see a problem with them:
   A "Discussion" has many speakers, many viewpoints, many issues, many 
proposed solutions, and, well, discussion about them all, lasting for 
(sometimes) a long time.
   A "CfC" usually follows a "Discussion" and has ONE (count 'em) 
statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or 
decision, asking for agreement or disagreement.  It may or may not be 
bundled with justifying data or logic, as long as the readers can find 
the CfC.  This CfC is followed by a variable number of replies agreeing 
or disagreeing with the statement.  Once that is done, the group can 
take the results of that CfC and move forward, with either another 
discussion, or a further CfC, as seems useful.
If your example had been a _statement_ "We should move to MSWord", then 
that would have worked for a CfC.  (I believe that such a CfC would 
collect a large number of "No"s, with many of them giving reasons.) 
However, wording it as a question "Should we..." is asking for a 
discussion, not a CfC.  And we cannot ever reach a concensus if we can't 
 tell the two apart.
For the record, I believe that the Chair should issue a CfC on "We 
should allow non-ASCII graphics to accompany IDs and RFCs."  If, and 
only if, that CfC passes, we should explore what format those graphics 
might be.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf