Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
This is not some hypothetical case. In that WG, there had been no
consensus for a year+ and it seemed unlikely that one would emerge,
except by exhaustion. Thus, the ADs proceeded with a vote, with the
properties described previously, which was then used as a basis for a
protocol decision. (Disclosure: I was at the losing end of that
decision.)
You could have always done what megaco did: flip a coin. At least that's
pretty hard to game.
Mike, "before we flip that coin, lets be clear on the question again:
'heads I win, tails you lose' right?"
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The current process doesn't work very well when voting is required,
after hum-style consensus has been inconclusive.
Why should voting be required? If the goal is consensus, "inconclusive"
shows that you haven't achieved it. Right? That seems to me that the
process is *working* as intended.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf