Pete,
On 10/10/2013 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/7/13 7:48 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I think it misses two
important points that should be addressed prior to publication:
1) The role WG/IETF mailing lists play in building and
gauging consensus
Yeah, as I just replied to Tom, I think this is worth adding, probably
in section 2 or 3.
great.
2) That some participants/chairs/I*s like seeing hands, and that's okay
Yes, this is directly said in section 4, paragraphs 4 & 5. What do you
think is missing?
It says hum+hands. My point is hands-only is okay and can be essentially
equivalent to the "humming" described in your document. I think it
would be valuable to make this point explicitly, as I essentially
everything else you say in the document. And I completely agree with
your point that a show of hands (& a poll on the list) are not votes.
There are different ways to achieve and determine consensus. As stated
in RFC2418:
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.
As I said in my reply to Dave, there's part of the above that I disagree
with, or at least think is an oversimplification. But it definitely need
citing.
got it, but as you say this document is Informational and doesn't
propose any change to IETF process, while RFC2418 is a BCP which does
define process.
Lou
pr