On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
We have NOT called for a vote. We have NOT even sent out an consensus call to
see if there is consensus to use an alternative process. We sent an email to
discuss that possibility. I really wish people would actually look at what is
going on.
Actually, the thread has been pretty good about focusing on what's being
done. What's being done is an effort to invent an IETF voting process,
exactly contrary to established IETF principles and practice.
The pressures towards voting are constant and reasonable. For the IETF,
they are also wrong.
The premise of the IETF's decision process is that a strongly dominant
community agreement is necessary for eventual success of a
specification. If you have that agreement, a mechanical measurement
like voting isn't needed, because the dominant choice is obvious. If
you don't have that agreement, voting doesn't help because you won't
have sufficient support for eventual market uptake.
The challenge, then, is to formulate a decision-sequence that does
produce rough consensus, or to declare failure.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net