ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

2013-11-05 13:13:11
What Larry is saying - or at least, what I'm agreeing with,
regardless of whether Larry meant this or not - is that if
you've a bunch of people saying "I've implemented this in
production, and X needs to be Y", then that is a very hard
argument to beat.

I didn't mean that. I think arguments need to be founded on technical 
justifications; claims of results  backed by open, reproducible data.

What I meant was that the "rough" in "rough consensus" is that non-implementor 
complaints shouldn't carry as much weight if all the implementors agree; you 
should listen to non-implementors and make sure that the agreement is based on 
technical judgment and not entirely on market or legacy considerations.

I have (unfortunately) been in working group meetings where none of the 
implementers were present.  Even if EVERYONE agrees, EVERYONE hums yes, I 
wouldn't call it "rough consensus", because the real implementors weren't there.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>