Re: IETF Last Calls and Godwin-like rules

On 2/17/12 3:34 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>    
> > On 2/17/12 2:18 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> >
> >      
> > > > *and I happen to know the person who is doing the agreeing*
> > > >          
> > > I keep hearing statements along these lines and it's a bit
> > > unnerving. Either participation in the IETF is open, or it isn't.
> > > When a person's opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc. are judged
> > > exclusively by "do I know this person" then you have an Old Boys
> > > Club, not an open body.
> > >        
> > Chris, I think Pete meant that if he happens to know the personal
> > context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to
> > it (because he knows the person has been following the discussion,
> > knows what that person's concerns have been in past threads, etc.). He
> > is not saying that you need to be part of the club in order to gain a
> > hearing, only that if he doesn't know you then a mere +1 carries less
> > (or no) weight with him.
> >      
> I hope Pete meant something a bit more than that. In specific, I hope he meant:
>
> if he happens to know the personal
> context of the person who says "+1" then he can impute some meaning to
> it, but if he doesn't know the personal context, then he needs to
> put effort into finding it out
>    
+1. ;-)

I think I might be able to decipher what Pete meant. I think Paul and 
Peter have it mostly right.
If there's an ongoing discussion and on a technical point someone says, 
"+1", I might know what that means. If the person who said "+1" has been 
participating in the rest of the conversation and I have the context of 
what that person knows, what points they've made in the past, etc., then 
I surely understand how to take the "+1". As I said, not a whole lot of 
data, but a sanity check on the point being discussed. But if a random 
participant who has said nothing to date in the discussion simply says, 
"+1", I have no idea how to give that any weight. Is this someone who 
was instructed to come along and give a "+1", but has no idea what the 
technical conversation is about? Or is it an otherwise silent expert on 
the subject? The only way I can figure out what a "person's 
opinion/view/thoughts/words/etc." are is for us to engage with 
eachother. I do not believe that "+1" constitutes engagement. I don't 
even think, "I support this document" constitutes engagement without a 
whole lot of other historical context. If you haven't been participating 
in the conversations, you should not expect your "+1"s to be given much 
weight.
It is absolutely true that this is an open body. But that doesn't mean 
it's a voting democracy. It's a consensus organization. Your mere 
presence doesn't count. It's your participating in the consensus that 
does. Participating means explaining and objecting and defending and 
discussing. 'Me too' is not one of those things unless you've already 
done a lot of engaging already.
> That is, in a WG where you are leading a consensus call, if you get a significant number of +1s or -1s from 
> people who haven't participated in the conversation to date, it is your responsibility to try to find out 
> why. "I just got started" is a perfectly good reason, as is "I have been following this 
> silently but this is the first thing I thought was important"; "I was told to join the list and 
> vote" is also context that is good to know.
>    
I'd add that it is also the responsibility of the participants to make 
sure that they do explain why they have said "+1". This is a human 
endeavor. I might "+1" something on the expectation that "of course the 
chair knows who I am and what I know about this topic." The chair may 
instead be thinking, "OK, so this is some random schmo that his company 
sent to say 'me too'." That's a fail on both of our parts, not just the 
chair.
> All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that started this thread.
>    
Noting that the supposed "proposal" was hyperbole, I will point to my 
initial reply to Dave: We still do need to occasionally call out 
publicly that we all recognize that political 'me toos' don't count. In 
fact, we ought not do counting at all.
pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf