Can anyone point to me where it is written that voting at a meeting is
the decision making process when rough consensus (hum or whatever) has
been inconclusive?
From what I know and have been told, people on the list should have
been given the chance to opine before declaring any results (so the
issue of timezones and advanced notice should not have any impact).
Could the IESG/IAB confirm what is the right procedure?
thanks,
Lakshminath
On 5/31/2007 7:09 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The current process doesn't work very well when voting is required,
after hum-style consensus has been inconclusive.
I think a fair vote requires
- a clear definition of who can vote
- a vote that is announced well in advance to all parties, not just a
select few
- some process that avoids favoring one or the other group (e.g., by
holding a vote during a meeting, while allowing remote participation,
but holding the vote at such a time that only certain regions can
reasonably participate)
These difficulties are particularly pronounced when a vote is held at a
meeting, but the issues of franchise apply in general.
[Without getting into the details, let's just say that I had the
non-pleasure of participating in a WG vote that had issues with all of
the above.]
Henning
On May 31, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/31/07 2:49 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think this is more evidence that we need more flexibility and
good sense, not more rigid rules.
Well, what's under description really isn't consensus
decision-making processes - what's being argued is a sort
of voting. Rather than getting stuck on definitions, though,
I think it's probably worthwhile to frame the discussion
in terms of intentions - what the original intent was, what
the current intent is, whether or not there's a mismatch,
and how to get the process to look like what's intended, if
it currently doesn't (and wow, do I think it does not).
Arguing over percentages doesn't, I think, go very far
towards figuring those things out. I think I understand
what used to be intended but I'm not sure I can articulate
it, but I do think that the problems around decision-making
come down to a few things:
1) not-that-great decision facilitation skills on the
part of some chairs and leaders;
2) too many participants who'd be happy shutting down the
whole process rather than accomodating a decision they
don't agree with
3) the organization is just too large for a touchy-
feely decision-making style.
But it seems to me that if you're going to go with some form
of voting, and that's what's happening in practice, it would
be better to design a fair voting process. If you're going
try to do consensus better you have to figure out how to deal
with the kvetches in a way that doesn't shut out dissent while
still allowing decision-making to move forward. Either one is
hard to do but I'm not sure that doing nothing is an option.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf