ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Image attachments to ASCII RFCs (was: Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats))

2006-06-17 05:35:14
Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS <gash(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:

I think you're referring to the comment (from a couple of people) that
the authors "ignored" a "consensus" to specify PDF profiles in the
proposed experiment. 

   There's a bit of a "straw-man" here, in that I'm pretty sure that no
two commenters said exactly that; but no matter -- that's not the point
I mean to speak to.

However, we did not "ignore" anything. 

   s/anything/any such thing/

It was not clear to me (or the other co-authors) prior to the
-02 version that there was any "consensus" RE specifying PDF
profiles/formats/versions,

   Here's the point I wish to speak to.

   It is a perversion of the meaning of "consensus" to take the attitude
that nothing in a draft needs to be changed unless there is "consensus"
on the exact nature of the change. I'm seeing that usage among too many
IETF participants; and it is _very_ annoying!

   The proper use of "consensus" process is to go through the excruciating
pain to reach near-unanimity _once_ to produce a base document; thereafter
discussing _small_ changes and waiting for reasonable "consensus" before
applying small changes. Where there isn't "consensus" to make a change,
consensus theory holds that the group isn't yet ready for the change (and
needs time to learn to accept it).

   Consensus theory evolved in response to well-known failings of
democratic decision-making: in particular the tendency to random-walk as
there are small shifts around a nearly-even split.

   In my experience consensus theory works well for a very large set of
issues in group dynamics -- but not all situations. The difficulty lies
in determining whether one is faced with a situation in which consensus
theory _cannot_ work, or merely a situation in which too few folks
understand consensus theory.

   This determination becomes arbitrarily difficult as personal agendas
of people who _do_ understand consensus theory cause them to act as if
they don't. :^(

   I will not attempt to offer a solution here; but I would appreciate
it as a personal favor if folks would stop using the word "consensus"
to refer to things quite alien to consensus theory.

--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>

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

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