Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem with consensus is how you decide to count the undecideds/neutrals.
In most cases of controversy there will be a small group pro, a small group con
and the bulk of the WG will be somewhere inbetween. If the breakdown is
25%/25%/50% a biased chair can effectively decide the outcome by choosing to
interpret 'no objection' as 'no support' or vice versa.
One thing that occurs to me is that there is usually a huge disconnect
between
the participation in hums at a meeting and the email equivalent on the
working
group list. I'd say that it's typically between one and two orders of
magnitude
at a meeting more hands/hums than on the list. And of course, on the
list it's
usually just a rehash of the same active participants with a few
stragglers thrown
in.
Maybe part of the problem with the "official" consensus taking on the
list is
that it isn't sufficiently anonymous? It's pretty easy in a crowd to hum or
put up your hand in a sea of others; on the list, it requires quite a
bit more
conviction. Apathy is the other likely reason, but there's not much we can
do about that short of working group demolition derby videos or suchlike.
So might having the ability to contact the chairs in private to register
their
preference be reasonable? I don't recall seeing this in any of the working
groups I've participated in.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf