ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Trying to invent a way of determining "consensus"

2006-01-06 10:55:18
Are you guys taking turns, saying the same thing over and over again?

For the record, I'm not taking sides in any of the current questions about ASCII/Word/AmiPro/etc, or DKIM, or the other discussions filling my inbox. I'm trying to come up with a way for the participants in those discussions to determine if they are done yet.

I am proposing a formal construct, called a "Call for Concensus", or appreviated as "CfC" (because I'm lazy and can't spell that third word the same way two times in a row anyway), for a specific purpose: to determine if we have reached an agreement during a discussion.

It is _not_ used _IN_ a discussion, it is used when the discussers are tired of the endless circles that these discussions turn in, _AFTER_ all the different options have been mentioned.

In order for such a test to work, it MUST be posted as a statement, which can be agreed with, or not. Simple enough. In order to cut down on the noise level, you word the statement such that it includes the supposed-agreement. People who agree don't need to reply. People who don't care, either from lack of expertise or apathy, don't need to reply. ONLY PEOPLE WHO OBJECT to that statement should reply to the CfC. If you have a rough idea of how many people received the CfC post, and you can easily see how many people objected, then you can easily see if your statement does, in fact, state a concensus agreement.

I don't see how this can be too complicated for people who create software.

The CfC is not part of the "discussion". It is a test to see if the discussion has had a result.

Is this a bad idea? I don't think so, but I keep getting replies, from differing posters, with differing words, that all evaluate to "But someone will disagree, and then you can't tell...." Yes, you can.

There are only four meaningful groups of people here, the matrix of care/don't care and agree/don't agree:

Anyone who disagrees with the CfC statement, but didn't reply, is too apathetic to participate. Don't count them, because they themselves don't think that their opinion is worth your time.

Anyone who agrees, and did reply, has trouble understanding instructions like "Only reply to this CfC if you disagree". Given that, should these people be making decisions for the group?.

  Who's left?  The two groups that we care about:

Anyone who disagrees, and replies, will have their voices heard, because their opinion is the one asked for by the CfC. If their objections (or volume) are significant, then the discussion will turn to ways to make progress while satisfying their concerns.

Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say anything, is fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support. The CfC will stand or fall based upon the size of the "disagree and replied" group.


Marshall Eubanks wrote:

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


--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>