Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus"
2006-01-06 08:21:42
Hello;
On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills
<sandy(_at_)WEIJax(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of "no", so we're
into the much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus-
deciders that the naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or
convincing the ones who asked for the "consensus call" that despite
their strongly held convictions, there are good reasons why we
shouldn't just do what they want.....
To me, this is the trouble with such proposals.
If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is
fair to say that the majority either
was in favor, or at least acquiesced. At least, if people complain
later, you can say, "you should have spoken up when appropriate." (I
suppose, for symmetry, that the same could be said against a proposal
if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this
must be rare indeed.)
But, as soon as there are _any_ objections, then people could remain
silent saying to themselves "I agree" or "I don't care" or "I agree
with the objections, which have been much better stated than I could
do." You just don't know.
So, I regard it as improper to assume support either way from the
"silent majority" if there is
any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have
consensus in the face of objections, but
it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all
the people who remain silent.
Regards
Marshall
The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed -
or rather - succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no
present proposal that enjoys a strong consensus.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", (continued)
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Frank Ellermann
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Ken Raeburn
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Sandy Wills
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus",
Marshall Eubanks <=
- Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus", Sandy Wills
- Re: Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus", JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus", Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus", Dave Crocker
- Re: Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus", Sam Hartman
- Digression was-Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Ted Hardie
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Ken Raeburn
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Sandy Wills
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Spencer Dawkins
- Re: objection to proposed change to "consensus", Sam Hartman
|
|
|