Oh, I understand cultural sensitivities, but I have never heard of not
wanting to challenge in the public (except the disagreeing with the
employer thing). The problem with that is that if people don't like
something and can't speak up or will only speak through a chair or an
AD, it allows natural avenues for abuse. The chair or the AD might as
well be making decisions at that point.
Even anonymous voting has verifiability as the crucial part of requirements.
If our consensus process is not independently and openly verifiable, we
might as well close shop!
Lakshminath
PS: BTW, I agree with Melinda that we should not allow a minority to
block progress; in any type of consensus process, unfortunately some of
us will be at the losing end of things.
On 5/31/2007 12:33 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
The alternative - a WG chair who tells the working group that the
apparent WG consensus on the mailing list is being overruled because of
anonymous objections that the WG chair cannot share with the WG, or
because of private objections that the WG chair is "channeling" from a
back room - would make voting seem reasonable (or, to use Mark Allman's
characterization in another thread, "seem charming").
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
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