On 2/14/13 2:02 PM, SM wrote:
The IAB recently had a discussion about "bottom-up organizational
modes". If I am not mistaken (please correct me) the IETF is the only
organization that uses "humming". I would say that it works in the IETF
as it is part of the culture; it cannot be grafted on an organization.
There are cases when a show of hands can be used. The sentence that
follows the quoted text explains when to use "humming".
It seems to me that this kind of misses the point. Consensus-
based decision making is not simply not voting, but it's processy
and a mechanism for reaching a decision collaboratively. Unfortunately
it's been the case for a very long time that the IETF does not
actually do that, that participants don't understand what it
means to use "rough consensus" for reaching decisions, working
group chairs often don't understand, IESG members often don't
understand, etc. So if people in the process tend to see it
as a particular variant on voting, and they're incorrect, it's
probably a mistake to use mechanisms that tend to support the
incorrect view. Hand raising looks so much like voting that
it's confusing.
It's not possible to resolve
an issue if the two sides are not ready to compromise.
This is probably *the* principal problem in consensus
decision-making. The participants have to be invested
in making the process work, and in having a mutually
satisfactory outcome. That's very, very often not the
case in the IETF, and I'm enthusiastic about Pete's draft
as a result - as much about culture transfer as about
process normativity and improvement.
In some sense what's under discussion actually exists in
the IESG, with DISCUSSes being blocking, etc. The difference,
of course, is that at some level there's an expectation of
altruism from IESG members but not of IETF participants.
There's a huge issue here with education. And again, kudos to
Pete for taking this on. It's a very steep hill.
There are different types of consensus; e.g. the consensus of the girls,
which is unappealable.
Whut?
Melinda