Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Combined response:
....
On 2007-05-31 23:07, Andy Bierman wrote:
I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in
an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
It promotes indecision and inaction.
I think the ability of some other SDOs to take go/no go decisions on
unpublished documents by a fixed deadline, based on corporate voting,
is a major flaw. It promotes superfical review and flawed documents.
This has more to do with corporate culture and the low priority
of 'quality' in the business model. The IETF's reluctance to
accurately quantify consensus is a different matter. Making bad decisions
on time is not the only other option.
On 2007-06-01 01:14, Andy Bierman wrote:
I don't understand why such a comment needs to be private.
Once the issue comes to light in the WG, it is no longer going
to be private.
You are assuming the Chair can and should be a proxy for a
WG member who wishes to remain anonymous. I disagree.
Why is this a problem? Again, our goal is to discover technical
flaws (or make technical improvements) in drafts. What does it
matter if someone has good reason to request anonymity and to use
the AD (or anyone else) as a proxy?
This is only a problem as the debate escalates.
It is not a problem bringing issues to light.
I suppose if the Chair is willing to proxy for both
sides of the issue, and make it clear when they are making
a comment as a proxy or as a Chair, then it is not an issue.
On 2007-06-01 04:09, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I think a fair vote requires
- a clear definition of who can vote
Which is fundamentally impossible in the IETF.
On 2007-06-01 04:22, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
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?
There must be something in between humming and corporate voting,
which is better than flipping a coin and arbitrarily picking a winner.
Definitely, nowhere. But there is a model that has been used
where a WG agrees *by rough consensus* to accept an arbitrary decision
method when a technical rough consensus cannot be reached. Example:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg46040.html
Brian
__
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf