Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I object to the suggestion that my "vote" should be counted
one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as
"no strong opinion". Or should I now start responding to all the Last
Calls with "I don't care about this, so please don't count me as
supporting it"?
We wouldn't count you as "supporting it". We would count you as "not
objecting". That's all.
Maybe there's another way to put it. How about:
"I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this CfC
if you object."
Do we need to put into the CfC that we are assuming agreement, and
that people who don't care don't have to respond? I thought it obvious
and understood by all (maybe that's my mistake, right there) that a CfC
is a request to respond if you object.
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many
group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of
getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't
any, after a period of free discussion.
It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks "if anyone
objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace." A CfC is assuming an
agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to
respond. Any other response is undesired. It's just noise that makes
it harder to hear the useful "objection" responses. When you got
married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up and say
"I'm okay with this marriage!"? No, you wanted the entire room silent,
so that you could hear any objection.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf