Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant th

> > > > > "Henning" == Henning Schulzrinne <hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu> 
> > > > > writes:
    Henning> For this particular case, I don't think there is a
    Henning> scientifically provable right answer, so a reasonable
    Henning> approach is to pick a number (1 or 2 or 3 steps) that
    Henning> most active participants affected can live with, and then
    Henning> put processes in place that actually align reality with
    Henning> goals. For example, I'd be very interested in the
    Henning> aggregate opinions of WG chairs, since they have to do
    Henning> much of the grunt work to make Draft and Standard happen.

    Henning> In cases of inherent uncertainty, the wisdom of the crowd
    Henning> is probably the best one can do. Thus, create a small
    Henning> number of self-consistent proposals, and determine a
    Henning> reasonable group of affected individuals, and then work
    Henning> through a process of elimination in that group, with a
    Henning> simple vote. I don't really care whether this group is a
    Henning> NONCOM-style selected random group, all NONCOM-eligible
    Henning> individuals, all ADs + WG chairs or all recent RFC
    Henning> authors. Currently, we're getting the opinion of those
    Henning> most inclined to come to a process plenary and to step up
    Henning> to the microphone, which is not necessarily
    Henning> representative of the affected community.


This is one direction we could take.  Nowe all you need to do is build
a consensus that is the direction we wish to take.  Others may for
example believe that doing anything is more harmful than having a
solution that does not enjoy IETF-wide rough consensus.  That's a
valid opinion to have.

So if you cannot get consensus on the solution, it is reasonable to
get consensus on how to make a decision.

However, you must not presume that you will get consensus on how to
make a decision.

Absent consensus on how to make a decsion, perhaps you could try and
get consensus that a decision must be made.  If you have consensus
that decisions must be made and no consensus on how to do it,then well
it kind of sucks but at least you know you have a problem.

However absent even a consensus that a decision must be made you are
not done discussing.


One drawback of the consensus process is that it is not guaranteed to
terminate.  I considered that a feature when I started working in the
IETF.  I'm willing to bet the organization on the assumption that
there is never a case where a decision must be made and we cannot at
least get consensus that such a decision must be made.

--Sam


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