[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Clarity of consensus
When confirming consensus, chairs in a different working group did the following: 

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/msg01168.html
(I picked that example because it pertains another contentious discussion and one that I recall of the top of my head).
To summarize, questions asked in the meeting were reiterated on the list and people who did not get to participate in the discussion were explicitly asked for their opinions.
With that context, let me ask a question. Did I miss an ION or something where the IESG decided that the approach used in this case is indeed the right way to determine consensus? If so, perhaps we should advertise it to the entire IETF. Why waste time by repeating questions on the list and all of that?
If that is not the case, let us follow the example above and set things right. Perhaps no one will respond to that call, so be it. At least the procedures we follow in the IETF would be consistent and as documented, not ad hoc. 

thanks and regards,
Lakshminath

On 6/4/2007 5:07 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:


I didn't really read Cullen's original mail describing the plan as a
"so mote it be" proclamation. It's what seemed like an appropriate
direction given the emerging consensus we perceive. While I do
concede that it didn't explicitly invite comments, it certainly
didn't present itself as a done deal (it characterized itself as a
"rough" plan, how he "would like" things to go forward, etc). After
the mail was sent, it stood without comment for almost a month - as
such, I'm not sure that people have been deprived of a fair chance to
express their opinions and so on.

That much said, obviously people should feel welcome to comment on
this plan and the overall direction, as you have.

Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc.


-----Original Message----- From: Lakshminath Dondeti
[mailto:ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:19 AM To: Sam Hartman Cc: Cullen Jennings; ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxx; Tim Polk; 
Peterson, Jon Subject: Re: Clarity of consensus


Thanks Sam.  Perhaps Cullen's email should be reworded inviting
people who were not present at the meeting in Prague to share their
 opinions. As I noted in one of my other emails, we would have then
 given everyone a fair chance to express their opinions on the
matter and we can go from there.  It's really that simple.

regards, Lakshminath

On 6/4/2007 7:00 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti

<ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Lakshminath> The problem is with "decision making" at a meeting. Lakshminath> Generally speaking, I would say that is 
not allowed.

Lakshminath> Seriously, if I think back, all of this

was based on
Lakshminath> some hums taken after the meeting was over and we Lakshminath> were into the break time in Prague. I am surprised Lakshminath> that none of the ADs are bothered by that kind of Lakshminath> thing (i.e., declaring "consensus" on a solution Lakshminath> after taking hums at a meeting). Perhaps I am all Lakshminath> wrong about this, but all the people I 
have talked to

Lakshminath> in private so far, said otherwise.

After the meeting I told Cullen that I believed the consensus in
the room was sufficiently rough that it needed more time on the
list. It's my recollection that he agreed that a way forward was


to propose

a direction as a consensus on the list and see if it stuck.
That's clearly allowed.  Naturally such a proposal would need to
have some sort of call for comments etc.


Sam Hartman Security Area Director