Re: Hum theatre
2013-11-07 11:42:33
On 11/7/13 1:36 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Like Randy, I sense a fair degree of process omphaloskepsis here.
What process do you think is being over-contemplated here? The bit about
the IAB judging consensus? Fine, ignore that bit. That's not the most
important bit.
(Dismissing or belittling arguments by characterizing -- or caricaturing
-- them, be it calling them "naive" or "overwrought" or
"omphaloskepsis", is often effective, but inappropriate.)
A wise person once told me that any consensus is judged at a point in
space and time, and this one sure was.
Consensus on *what* exactly in this case? Consensus that we should all
be happy? Consensus that we should all have a pony?
It is true that consensus (rough or otherwise) is a state, and that
state can always change. But consensus should be on a particular point
and it must be relatively stable; it shouldn't be claimed on some broad
platitude for which nobody knows the details, and it shouldn't change
unless new information is brought into the mix.
What you're saying is that it is impossible for the consensus of the
IETF to be estimated in plenary session and that it requires some
specially anointed person (not of the IAB) to judge that consensus.
No, I am absolutely not saying that. I disagree completely with all of
the above statement.
After a discussion of issues, it is perfectly reasonable for someone
(anyone) to *estimate* what the consensus of the IETF might be in
plenary and state that. Sometimes that might even be a good thing.
A hum (or a show of hands, or an applause meter) can give you lots of
information about the sentiment of the room and it might even give you
an estimate of what the consensus of the room is. All fine.
But taking a hum, at the end, without discussion afterward, is not a
reasonable way to *call* consensus. And that's exactly what some people
heard was going on. And it's hard to interpret what Russ said otherwise.
(As for the "anointed" person: *Calling* consensus -- that is, making an
IETF decision -- does take someone who the IETF has agreed is
responsible to do that. Estimating consensus or guessing consensus or
otherwise sticking one's finger into the wind and predicting consensus
are all fine -- unless you're doing so to try to shove people into a
particular position -- but making a final call *is* something that we
leave for someone in particular. You'll not that when Ted asked for the
hum, he asked Jari to do it. And again, none of this is the important
point of my message.)
Neither argument seems to me like it would really sway the outcome of
this decision...
Sorry: What decision exactly?
These consensus calls seem to have captured the high-level consensus
of the IETF, as gathered in plenary at this meeting. Yes, there was
argument about more specific details at the PERPASS meeting, but I
don't think that invalidates the more general agreement.
Don't get hung up on the details. This isn't about the details.
Have a hum and applause to make you feel good. Just don't confuse
people to think that it means the IETF has come to consensus.
Ask big fluffy political questions that state big fluffy political
principles. Just don't confuse people to think that it means the IETF
has come to consensus.
I know people hate the idea that the IETF can't make grand political
statements and that we're stuck doing technical work. Making grand
political statements is fun and gets good press. Tough. Leave grand
political statements to the IAB and ISOC. Let the IETF do its technical
work and stop engaging in theatrics. Far less flashy, but significantly
more useful.
pr
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com <mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Some folks approached me after the plenary and asked me why I
objected so loudly to these "taking of hums". Tim's response
pretty well explains it:
On 11/6/13 6:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
On 11/6/13 6:50 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but I entirely disagree.
I thought each of those made an important point and
highlighted some areas where consensus is broadly held. I
appreciated Russ' composition of the issues and think he
deserves our thanks.
the feeling of those present was pretty clear.
Yes, the feeling of those present was pretty clear. And if Russ
had only asked for the feeling of those present, I probably
wouldn't have been torqued. I would have, like Dave described it,
thought it a bit of political theater, but otherwise said "Whatever".
But Russ didn't ask for a "feeling". Russ said that he was asking
about consensus, and Tim heard that the result of those hums
*were* the IETF coming to consensus. And that's just bogus. There
was no consensus, and some of this I think is really damaging to
the IETF.
Look at a couple of these:
On 11/6/13 12:41 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
1. The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive
surveillance attack?
Overwhelming YES. Silence for NO.
This was "The IETF wants to save the lives of bunnies." Press
release nonsense. And surely so much mush as not to be consensus.
Just let's everybody applaud. OK, who cares, but not useful.
3. The IETF should include encryption, even outside
authentication, where practical.
Strong YES. Silence for NO.
So if you sat in perpass, you'll know that the result of this hum
was rubbish. There were a bunch of people up at the mic in perpass
who objected strenuously to this. There was no IETF consensus on
this point. But if you took the result of the bogus hum as
consensus, you'd sure think so. And that happened because Russ
loaded the deck in the way he asked the question to make sure that
nobody would hum against it. He asked it at the end when it was
clear there would be no discussion of dissent, so that people who
might have objected felt comfortable that at least they'd have a
chance to explain themselves instead of looking like idiots
humming against motherhood and apple pie. Pure nonsense.
This wasn't about getting consensus. This was about everybody
feeling good about themselves and being able to applaud. And if
anyone tries to enforce any of these things as consensus of the
IETF (e.g., "Sorry; we had a hum and there was consensus that
we're doing encryption without authentication whether you'd like
to or not, so you're in the rough"), that should be appealed
immediately.
This is vote stuffing in the extreme. It's ignoring (heck, it's
actively suppressing) minority voices. It makes a joke of coming
to consensus at all.
And all that said, since when does the IAB judge the consensus of
the IETF? Not since 1992, as far as I remember.
I don't disagree with any of the statements per se. As Scott Brim
pointed out, the statements were incredibly general and left all
sorts of stuff undefined, so it's hard to know exactly what I'm
signing up to by agreeing with them. But again, it's motherhood
and apple pie for most of them. (The second might have been
interesting if it weren't buried in the middle of the rest.) And
it made for fine press. But IETF consensus? Bullpucky.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
<tel:%2B1%20%28858%29651-4478>
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Hum theatre, (continued)
- Re: Hum theatre, Pete Resnick
- Re: Hum theatre, Richard Barnes
- Re: Hum theatre,
Pete Resnick <=
- Re: Hum theatre, Jari Arkko
- Re: Hum theatre, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)
- Re: Hum theatre, Pete Resnick
- Re: Hum theatre, Dave Cridland
- Re: Hum theatre, Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Hum theatre, Richard Barnes
- Re: Hum theatre, Ted Lemon
- Re: Hum theatre, Dave Crocker
- Re: Hum theatre, Randy Bush
- Re: Hum theatre, Tim Bray
|
|
|