|
Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
2013-10-06 19:04:33
Review
Title: On Consensus and Humming in the IETF
draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
Reviewer: D. Crocker
Reivew data: 6 Oct 2013
Summary:
The draft discusses IETF processes for making group decisions,
especially in the face of disagreement. As the draft notes, the IETF
has no formal membership, which makes strict voting impossible. It also
notes the engineering reasons that strict voting can be inappropriate.
Hence the IETF uses the term "rough consensus" to describe it's approach
to decisions. The draft offers the view that this is term represents a
group journey, rather than only a decision-making moment. It also
stresses the need for diligently dealing with objections, rather than
merely developing an overwhelming numerical preference.
In terms of philosophy and desirable practice, the draft discusses
an extremely appealing model and generally explains its nature and
practice well. However the draft tends to confuse what is (or has been)
with what should be. This includes confusing the IETF's historical
sense of what 'rough consensus' means, with what the draft suggests it
mean. As a consequence, it sometimes merely explains what is preferred,
rather than the problems with what is common practice. (Sometimes. At
other times, it nicely makes its case.) Also it sometimes does not lay
out the context for its assertions.
In effect, the draft is offering fundamental enhancements to
existing IETF practice, rather than merely clarifying the ways things
are "supposed to be". By way of properly setting context, the draft
should cite RFC 1603/3934, Working Group Guidelines and Procedures. Its
section 3.3 has text that describes long-standing community views on the
meaning of rough consensus, which don't quite align with what the draft
puts forward:
In general, the dominant view of the
working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that
"dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51%
of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
consensus has been reached.
The disparity between that document's text and what this draft
describes should not be a problem for what the draft is recommending,
but merely requires changing the explanatory tone of the draft and how
it makes its case.
On reflection, it's a bit odd that the draft hasn't already cited
any formal IETF documentation on rough consensus and its use.
The draft needs to distinguish historical practice from proposed
enhancement. It also needs to explicate things more clearly, as
indicated in the detailed comments. In some cases, discussion conflates
two or more topics together and needs to separate them.
The changes being suggested to the draft are substantial, but will
not affect the essential points for which the draft is lobbying.
Detailed comments:
Abstract
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through
a consensus process, taking into account the different views among
IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on
technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run
by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals
a "majority rule-> a "simple majority rule"
Majorities come in different forms or degrees and the fact that 'rough
consensus' is often taken to mean 67% or 75%, as a rule of thumb can
make this confusing.
From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't
enough; it's worth making that explicit.
However...
like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our
actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are
letting the majority win the day, without consideration of minority
This is a more important sentence than what came before, IMO, but it
doesn't have context. What came before doesn't obviously have anything
to do with paying attention to minority concerns.
If your above "majority rule" statement is meant to say that no
mathematical majority of any degree is automatically sufficient -- which
is what you've been stressing in our discussions and later in the
document -- then you haven't made that point at all, yet.
For example, "voting" can be done with models that give quite a bit of
power to minorities. So, you need an explicit, direct, early statement
that asserts the nature and importance of "rough consensus" factoring in
minority views.
concerns. This document is a collection of thoughts on what rough
consensus is, how we have gotten away from it, and the things we can
do in order to really achieve rough consensus.
...
1. Introduction
Almost every IETF participant knows the aphorism from Dave Clark's
1992 plenary presentation [Clark] regarding how we make decisions in
the IETF:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.
That is, our credo is that we don't let a single individual make the
As the draft phrases it, that isn't really true. We let individuals
make decisions all the time. What I believe the aphorism is saying --
and what reflects our community belief -- is: We do not assign to any
one individual the authority to /dictate/ a decision. ("make" is too
soft a word for this point, IMO.)
decisions, nor do we let the majority dictate decisions, nor do we
I believe the model being pursued in this draft -- of the nature and
essential importance of properly dealing with minority views -- is
hugely powerful and appropriate. But I believe it has never been a
prevalent view in the community, including back when the aphorism was
seeking to summarize the community view.
The language I remember from the 90s primarily distinguished "strongly
dominant majority" from 51% or 67% or 75%. That is, it was about
imprecise nature of the required clear and strong majority, rather than
the moderating role of the minority. Very occasionally -- but only
occasionally -- we would use language that was along the lines of
"strongly dominant view, with no vigorous and coherent opposition". That
latter part probably should be seen as a crude version of what the draft
is seeking to discuss, but I believe it was never consistently voiced or
understood.
In other words, I think the role of minority views that the draft is
putting forward is not a mere clarification and refinement to the
existing IETF model, but rather is a significant enhancement. So its
premise about the potential importance of minority views does have some
historical hooks in the IETF philosophy, but not as much as the draft
seems to assert.
allow decisions to be made in a vacuum without practical experience.
Again, this statement goes beyond actual practice. The language here
prohibits decisions without experience and of course, the real IETF has
always indulged in some decision-making based on theory that lacked
practice. We /prefer/ experience. We /value/ the input it provides.
But we are perfectly capable of making decision in a vacuum.
Instead, decisions are made by (more or less) consent of all
"Consent of all"? Hell no. Not even close, as your following text
already note.
participants, and the actual products of engineering trump
Evidently, Pete hasn't been tracking the vigorous complaints about the
SPF use of TXT records, arguing that such an offensive misuse of the DNS
/must not/ be standardized, no matter how popular and integral the
mechanism has become. This represents a serious view that products
absolutely do /not/ trump theoretical designs. (Not surprisingly, I
disagree with that view...)
theoretical designs. Our ideal is full consensus, but we don't
require it: Full consensus would allow a single intransigent person
Full consensus would allow
->
Requiring full consensus gives each person a veto, by allowing
Resnick Expires April 07, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft On Consensus October 2013
who simply keeps saying "No!" to stop the process cold. We only
require rough consensus: If the chair of a working group determines
Again, this seems to conflate two points. Both are extremely important.
Both need to be discussed. But not intermixed.
One is that we do not require everyone to agree, as long as there is a
strongly dominant group that do agree.
The other is that all concerns must be diligently considered, but do not
have to be thoroughly resolved. 'Diligently considered' is an
imposition on the entire group but it is mandatory. 'Not thoroughly
resolved' is acceptable when the strongly dominant group agree that it
is acceptable.
that a technical issue brought forward by an objector has been truly
considered by the working group, and the working group has made an
informed decision that the objection has been answered or is not
enough of a technical problem to prevent moving forward, the chair
can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, the
objection notwithstanding. To reinforce that we do not vote, we have
"To reinforce" switches from discussing the handling of minority
concerns about voting. At a minimum, break the paragraph.
also adopted the tradition of "humming": When (for example) the chair
of the working group wants to get a "sense of the room", instead of a
show of hands, the chair asks for each side to hum for or against a
question.
The draft has historically drawn a strong distinction between hands and
hums. It's an interesting distinction, and well might be useful, but I
believe it has not been a universally-shared distinction in the
community. It essentially relies on a theoretical analysis of
differences in psychological effects, but there's no objective basis for
validating the one really is superior to the other.
In effect, the draft is asserting rationale and precision about audience
measurement that haven't been present. Of course, there is an objective
truth that humming does not permit counting, while hand-raising does.
However humming has it's own psychologically biasing factors and they
aren't trivial.
Now, perhaps the draft is seeking to lobby for use of humming, as
preferred over hand-raising. That's fine. Cast it as such and argue
for it. It's relatively anonymous, it's a bit easier and quicker, it
doesn't permit a false sense of measurement precision, ...
However, in recent years we have seen participants (and even some
folks in IETF leadership) who do not understand some of the
subtleties of consensus-based decision making. Participants ask,
"Why are we bothering with this 'humming' thing? Wouldn't a show of
hands be easier? That way we could really see how many people want
one thing over another." Chairs, many of whom have little experience
in leading large volunteer groups like those in the IETF, let alone
experience in how to gather consensus, are faced with factious
working groups with polarized viewpoints and long-running unresolved
issues that return again and again to the agenda. More and more
frequently, people walk away from working groups, thinking that
"consensus" has created a document with horrible compromises to
satisfy everyone's pet peeve instead of doing "the right thing".
None of these things are indicators of a rough consensus process
being used, and are likely due to some basic misperceptions.
Is the issue their perception, or the fact that horrible compromises are
actually being done? From the text, I can't tell what point is intended.
This document attempts to explain some features of rough consensus,
explain what is not rough consensus, and suggest ways that we might
achieve rough consensus and judge it in the IETF. Though this
document describes some behaviors of working groups and chairs, it
does so in broad brushstrokes and it is not intended to dictate
it is not intended to dictate -> it does not dictate
specific procedures. It is intended to foster understanding of the
underlying principles of IETF consensus processes.
2. Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement
The substance of this section has an important focus and makes useful
comments.
However the title could be taken to cover such things as failure to gain
affirmative support. WGs often suffer from a lack of active involvement
by more than a few participants. In such cases, lack of disagreement is
apathy, which is much worse than (active) agreement.
A working group comes to a technical question of whether to use
format A or format B for a particular data structure. The chair
notices that a number of experienced people think format A is a good
choice. The chair asks on the mailing, "Is everyone OK with format
A?" Inevitably, a number of people object to format A for one or
another technical reason. The chair then says, "It sounds like we
don't have consensus to use format A. Is everyone OK with format B?"
This time even more people object to format B, on different technical
grounds. The chair, not having agreement on either format A or
Resnick Expires April 07, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft On Consensus October 2013
format B, is left perplexed, thinking the working group has
deadlocked.
The problem that the chair got themselves into in the above case was
thinking that what they were searching for was agreement. "After
all", thinks the chair, "consensus is a matter of getting everyone to
agree, so asking whether everyone agrees is what the chair ought to
do. And if lots of people disagree, there's no consensus." But
_determining_ consensus and _coming to_ consensus are different
things than _having_ consensus. Consensus is not when everyone is
par break at start of sentence. And possibly move this and the
remaining sentences higher up, since they voice the essential point of
the section. In other words, try to start with the premise so that
folks are oriented, and then explain it.
happy and agrees that the chosen solution is the best one. Consensus
is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the chosen solution,
such that they no longer have specific objections to it.The
distinction might be a bit subtle, but it's important. It is almost
certain that any
time engineering choices need to be made, there will be options that
appeal to some people that are not appealing to some others. The key
is to separate those choices that are simply unappealing from those
that are truly problematic.
Here's a suggestion for some re-casting to this separate paragraph, to
help the reader bit, with the draft's logic and meaning:
Engineering always involves a set of tradeoffs. The process of
gaining agreement about tradeoffs is the essence of a good rough
consensus effort, and requires distinguishing the group debate and
compromise needed to _come to_ consensus, the chair's process of
_determining_ (or assessing) consensus, and the final point of the
group's _having_ consensus on it choices.
...
However, there is another sense of "compromise" that involves
compromising between people, not engineering principles. For
example, a minority of a group might object to a particular proposal,
and even after discussion still think the proposal is deeply
problematic, but decide that they don't have the energy to argue for
it and say, "Forget it, do what you want". That surely can be called
a compromise, but a chair might mistakenly take this to mean that
they agree, and have therefore come to consensus. But really all
that they've done is conceded; they've simply given up by trying to
appease the others. That's not coming to consensus; there still
exists an outstanding unaddressed objection. Even worse is the
"horse-trading" sort of compromise: "I object to your proposal for
such-and-so reasons. You object to my proposal for this-and-that
reason. Neither of us agree. If you stop objecting to my proposal,
I'll stop objecting to your proposal and we'll put them both in."
That again results in an "agreement" of sorts, but it also results in
two outstanding unaddressed issues, again ignoring them for the sake
of expedience. These sorts of "giving up" or "horse-trading"
compromises have no place in consensus decision making. In each
case, a chair who looks for "agreement" might find it in these
examples because it appears that people have "agreed". But again,
answering technical disagreements is what is needed to achieve
consensus, sometimes even when the people who stated the
disagreements no longer wish to discuss them.
This seems to argue that political compromise is never acceptable.
That's not realistic. Folks often can "live with" unresolved concerns.
The meta-issue is distinguishing disagreements about key points versus
disagreement about minor ones. Political compromise about a flat vs.
hierarchical namespace is a rather different kettle of importance than
between specifying a syntactic separator of comma vs. semicolon. (No
matter how much prettier I might think commas are, and superior for good
visual presentation...)
The expedient of political compromise about more minor preferences is a
huge benefit for making progress. Compromising on major concerns, of
course, is more likely to undermine utility or adoption.
Coming to consensus is when everyone comes to the conclusion that
either the objections are valid (and therefore making a change to
address the objection) or that the objection was not really a matter
of importance, but merely a matter of taste. Of course, coming to
full consensus like that does not always happen. That's why in the
IETF, we talk about "rough consensus".
3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
necessarily accommodated
...
So, an objector might say, "The proposal to go with protocol X is
much more complicated than going with protocol Y. Protocol Y is a
much more elegant and clean solution, which I can code much more
easily, and protocol X is a hack." The working group might consider
this input, and someone might respond, "But we have a great deal of
code already written that is similar to protocol X. While I agree
that protocol Y is more elegant, the risks to interoperability with
an untested solution is not worth it compared to the advantages of
going with the well-understood protocol X." If the chair finds, in
their technical judgement, that the issue has truly been considered,
and that the vast majority of the working group has come to the
conclusion that the tradeoff is worth making, even in the face of
continued objection from the person(s) who raised the issue, the
chair can declare that the group has come to rough consensus.
Note that this portrays rough consensus as an "exception". In one
I don't understand this first sentence. How is it an exception? Even
with the following text, I don't see the basis for claiming that it
might/would be seen as exceptional.
sense, it is: As a working group does its work and makes its choices,
it behaves as if it is striving toward full consensus and tries to
get all issues addressed to the satisfaction of everyone in the
group, even those who originally held objections. It treats rough
consensus as a sort of "exception processing", to deal with cases
where the person objecting still feels strongly that their objection
is valid and must be accommodated. But it is certainly true that
more often than not in the IETF, at least someone in the group will
be unsatisfied with a particular decision. In that sense, rough
consensus might be closer to the norm than the "exception". However,
when a participant says, "That's not my favorite solution, but I can
live with it; I'm satisfied that we've made a reasonable choice",
that participant is not in the "rough" part of a rough consensus; the
group actually reached consensus if that person is satisfied with the
outcome. It's when the chair has to declare that an unsatisfied
person still has an open issue, but that the group has truly answered
the objection, that the consensus is only rough.
...
Now, a conclusion of having only rough consensus relies heavily on
the good judgement of the consensus caller. The group must truly
consider and weigh an issue before the objection can be dismissed as
being "in the rough". The chair of the working group in one of these
In spite of being appealing to use here, I think that the phrase "in the
rough" is actually distracting, and possibly inappropriate:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+rough
google:
1. in a natural state; without decoration or other treatment.
"a diamond in the rough"
2. in difficulties. "even before the recession hit, the project
was in the rough"
cases is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the
outcome does constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements
of the work. In order to do this, the chair will need to have a good
idea of the purpose and architecture of the work being done and use
their own technical judgement to make sure that the solution meets
those requirements. What can't happen is that the chair bases their
decision solely on hearing a large number of voices simply saying,
"The objection isn't valid." That would simply be to take a vote. A
valid justification needs to me made.
This begs the question of who determines that a justification is valid.
I'll suggest that it mostly should be the working group, with the
chair as fall-back or safety valve, but not default.
By the way, the draft seems to think that it's always the chair who
leads discussion and debate; it often/mostly isn't. Rather it's
typically the authors/editors, with a chair serving to moderate impasses.
Any finding of rough consensus needs, at some level, to provide a
reasoned explanation to the person(s) raising the issue of why their
concern is not going to be accommodated. A good outcome is for the
objector to understand the decision taken and accept the outcome,
even though their particular issue is not being accommodated in the
final product. Remember, if the objector feels that the issue is so
par break at Remember.
essential that it must be attended to, they always have the option to
file an appeal. A technical error is always a valid basis for an
appeal. The chair (or whoever is responsible to hear an appeal) may
determine that the issue was addressed and understood, but they also
have the freedom and the responsibility to say, "The group did not
take this technical issue into proper account" when appropriate.
Simply having a large majority of people agreeing to dismiss an
objection is not enough to claim there is rough consensus; the group
must have honestly considered the objection and evaluated that other
issues weighed sufficiently against it. Failure to do that reasoning
and evaluating means that there is no true consensus.
4. Humming should be the start of a conversation, not the end
...
So, why do we hum? The first reason is pragmatic. Quite often, a
chair is faced with a room full of people who seem to be
diametrically opposed on some choice facing the group. In order to
find a starting place for the conversation, it is often useful for
the chair to ask for a hum to see if one of the choices already has a
stronger base of support than the other. If choice "foo" has a
significant amount more support than choice "bar", it is likely
easier to start the discussion by saying, "OK, 'foo' seems to have
quite a bit of support. Let's have the people that think 'foo' is a
bad idea come up and tell us why it is problematic." At that point,
This section reads nicely and sounds quite good and very possibly might
be something that we /should/ do. However it has little to do with
common IETF practice. The simple reality is that hums are almost only
used for indicating whether the group has a 'strongly dominant'
preference. Currently, it is rarely used as a means of deciding who to
ask for objections. Should we form a wg? Will folk work on the spec? Do
folks prefer alternative A? Is mechanism X workable here?
Even better is that I think the draft has buried it's more important
point, namely that the /form of the question/ asked when seeking a hum
is the really hard part of the effort, and the most important part.
Some forms invite constructive discussion and some close it off. Some
are fair and balanced (...) and some are highly biasing.
the group can start going through the issues and see if any of them
are showstoppers. It may turn out that one of the objections is
instantly recognized by the entire group as a fatal flaw in "foo" and
the group will then turn to a discussion of the merits (and demerits)
of "bar" instead. All that the hum does is give the chair a starting
point: There were likely to be less objections to "foo" than to "bar"
at the beginning of the discussion, so starting with whatever got the
most hums can shorten the discussion.
...
But couldn't the above could have been done with a show of hands
This paragraph goes back to the hum-vs-hand methodology issue. It's
important, but it's out of place here, since this section is about the
/role/ of a hum, not its method. Discuss methodology separately,
possibly up where it is first introduced.
instead of a hum? Sure, but there are more formal reasons for using
a hum instead of a show of hands: Another reason we hum is because it
actually gives the chair the opportunity to take the temperature of
the room. A smaller bunch of loud hums for choice A and a larger
number of non-committal hums for choice B might indicate that some
people believe that there are serious problems with choice B, albeit
the more popular by sheer number of people. The chair might decide
that starting with choice A and getting objections to it is the
easier path forward and more likely to result in consensus in the
end. Remember, coming to consensus is a matter of eliminating
disagreements, so the chair wants to choose the path that gets to the
least objections fastest. A bunch of people who are not strongly
"the chair wants to choose the path that gets to the least objections
fastest" sounds like an extremely appealing expedient, by virtue of
being almost mechanical, but numbers often don't matter. A single
objection that observes (and substantiates) that a choice will not or
cannot be used in the real world will outweigh a much larger number of
trivial objections.
Perhaps merely qualifying the statement a bit will suffice: the chair
wants to choose the path that gets to the least number of significant
objections fastest". Hmmm.
committed to B might have no real technical objection to A, even
though it is not their first preference. There is always a chance
that this could be misleading, because some people are more willing
to hum loudly than others (just by dint of personality), but keep in
mind that taking the hum is to figure out how to start the
conversation. The chair could always be surprised because the hum
turns out to be unanimous. Otherwise, the hum begins the discussion,
it doesn't end it.
Of course, a chair could get the temperature of the room by doing a
show of hands too, and knowing who specifically feels one way or
another can help a good chair guide the subsequent conversation.
And possibly place the minority under group pressure.
...
This also points to another misuse of the hum: If the chair is
already convinced that the group has come to consensus, there is no
reason to take a hum. In fact, taking the hum only serves to
discourage those who might be in the minority from voicing their
concerns to the group in the face of a large majority who want to
move forward. The right thing for the chair to do if they already
sense consensus is to say, "It sounds to me like we have consensus
for choice A. Does anybody have any concerns or objections to going
with A?" This allows folks to bring up issues to the group that the
chair might have mistakenly missed without having them feel that the
majority has "already spoken".
+1
...
5. Consensus is the path, not the destination
...
We often hear chairs say that they are making a "consensus call".
Sometimes, they simply mean they are making a call _of_ the
consensus; that is, they are declaring the consensus that has, in
their view, been reached when the discussion has reached an end.
That's a fine thing and what chairs are supposed to do: They are
"calling" the consensus. Sometimes, when a chair says that they are
Might be worth tossing in the word "confirm" or "confirming existing
consensus" here, to leave no doubt about what "calling" means.
...
6. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
consensus
...
So in a large working group with over 100 active participants and
broad agreement to go forward with a particular protocol, if a few
participants say, "This protocol is going to cause congestion on the
network, and it has no mechanism to back off when congestion occurs;
we object to going forward without such a mechanism in place", and
the objection is met with silence on the mailing list, there is no
The problem here is who is the authority to determine that the objection
needs to hold sway. It's easy to lay this on the chair, but that makes
the mechanisms fragile; it's too easy for one person to get this sort of
thing wrong.
consensus. Even if the working group chair makes a working group
last call on the document, and 100 people actively reply and say,
"This document is ready to go forward", if the open issue hasn't been
addressed, there's still no consensus. It's the existence of the
unaddressed open issue, not the number of people, which is
determinative in judging consensus. As discussed earlier, you can
have rough consensus with issues that have been purposely dismissed,
but not ones that have been ignored.
...
7. Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough
consensus
...
Now the worst case scenario happens. The objector, still unhappy
that their preferred solution was not chosen, recruits one hundred
people, maybe a few who were silent participants in the working group
already, but mostly people who work at the same company as the
objector who never participated before. The objector gets them all
to post a message to the list saying, "I believe we should go with
the new elegant algorithm in section Z instead of the current one.
It is more elegant, and works better on our hardware." The chair
sees these dozens of messages coming in and posts a query to each of
them: "We discussed this on the list, and we seemed to have consensus
that, given the inherent risk of a new algorithm, and the widespread
deployment of this current one, it's better to stick with the current
one. Do you have further information that indicates something
different?" And in reply the chair gets utter silence. These
posters to the list (say some of whom were from the company sales and
marketing department) thought that they were simply voting and have
no answer to give. At that point, it is within bounds for the chair
to say, "We have objections, but the objections have been
sufficiently answered, and the objectors seem uninterested in
participating in the discussion. Albeit rough in the extreme, there
is rough consensus to go with the current solution."
There's an interesting methodological point buried quite deep in this
example, and probably worth surfacing sooner and more directly:
Besides being careful about how the question for a consensus check
is phrased, it is sometimes advisable to seek to discover what the
responses mean.
In the example here, the question is whether those responding were
sufficiently well-informed to be able to justify their position.
There is no doubt that this is the degenerate case and a clear
indication of something pathological. But this is precisely what
rough consensus is designed to guard against: vote stuffing. In the
Sorry, no. It's not 'designed' for that at all, at least not in typical
practice in the IETF. It probably /should/ be, and the draft does a
pretty good job of explaining how it /can/ be, but there is nothing in
the "design" of the IETF's consensus process that has a history of
mitigating against the problem the draft discusses here, and the problem
isn't mentioned in formal IETF documents.
presence of an objection, the chair can use their technical judgement
to decide that the objection has been answered by the group and that
rough consensus overrides the objection. Now, the case described
here is probably the hardest call for the chair to make (how many of
us are willing to make the call that the vast majority of people in
the room are simply stonewalling, not trying to come to consensus?),
and if appealed it would be incredibly difficult for the appeals body
to sort out. Indeed, it is likely that if a working group got this
dysfunctional, it would put the whole concept of coming to rough
consensus at risk. But still, the correct outcome in this case is to
look at the very weak signal against the huge background noise in
order to find the rough consensus.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05,
Dave Crocker <=
|
|
|