I wasn't making any suggestion about what we should be doing. My sole point was
that as the language differs, we should be aware of that and word accordingly,
i.e. not use phrases like "simple majority" to mean 51%, as it may not.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com | http://www.baesystems.com
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Rex [mailto:mrex(_at_)sap(_dot_)com]
Sent: 07 October 2013 21:56
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; Pete Resnick; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Review of: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
From what you've written, your basic point seems to be that 51% isn't
enough; it's worth making that explicit.
To add to the confusion, and to emphasise the point about making clear,
British and American English differ here. If three proposals (not the
most common case, I agree, but it can happen) have 45%, 35% and 20%
of the votes, the first of these has a majority, sometimes emphasised
as simple majority, in British English. (We do not - to our loss - use
the word plurality. Just 51% is given the strong term absolute majority.)
I haven't checked the context here, but saying not just a simple
majority might suggest to a British English user that 51% is enough.
Voting as is done in elections for political parties is often going
to produce a political result, a personal preference of a few rather
than an engineering solution that adequately addresses the concerns
of the community at large.
What we could do in the IETF, is not just trying to pick the lesser evil,
but rather use the _engineering_ skills to modify and/or merge proposals
to increase the number of folks that support the result and reduce
the amount of folks that object the result.
With your example of three competing proposals: A, B and C, and by couting
"votes" the WG chair determine support of 45%, 35% and 20% respectively,
does this mean that A has signficant support? Not at all. It could be
that the folks who voted for B and C did so because they are both strongly
opposed to A.
A WG chair who wants to be neutral on the decision should probably not
just call:
which of the three proposals do you prefer: A, B or C
and perform political inferences on the result, but rather
_ask_ the engineers direclty:
if we were to select A, would you "support it, are neutral, are opposed"
if you're either neutral or opposed to A, what change(s) to A would
make you supportive for A?
if we were to select B, would you "support it, are neutral, are opposed"
if you're either neutral or opposed to A, what change(s) to A would
make you supportive for B?
if we were to select C, would you "support it, are neutral, are opposed"
if you're either neutral or opposed to A, what change(s) to A would
make you supportive for C?
I've seen a few "WG consensus calls" which appeared somewhat skewed/biased
to me towards exclusing specific outcomes. I do _not_ know whether this
was causes by malicous intent or just accidental / not sufficiently well
thought out. I'm OK with a leadership decision, but leadership decisions
should not be exerted early in the process by preventing certain questions
to get asked at all.
How well the process works can be seen by how objections are resolved.
Are objections handled by spin doctors, or by engineers that are open
to improvements of their work.
-Martin
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************