Hi -
From: Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
Sent: Jun 12, 2013 12:42 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
Cc: "<ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>"
<ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com>, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I read Pete's document on consensus, I thought that +1
statements were part of the consensus process. This was not a
strongly held opinion—it was just my understanding of how
consensus operated, from having watched other working group
chairs run their working groups. I think the point Pete is
making is very important, because the consensus process Pete
describes is more in keeping with how I think the IETF ought
to operate than the process in which +1 counts for something.
...
As a former WG chair who's had to deal with some very rough
consensus calls...
Not "counting" a "+1" is more consistent with a classical definition
of consensus. But, particularly at a WG level (less so, perhaps,
at the IETF level) "+1" is very helpful in determining whether
the previously mentioned "Abilene Paradox" should be of concern.
Randy