On Oct 11, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
> The process in the ID is not what was followed when I was an AD and it not
> what I have described by the meaning of the term "rough consensus" in my
> newcomers tutorials (which I have been giving since at least IETF 57 in
> 2003).
Perhap
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
As Dave Crocker pointed out, this document is, at best, revisionist history.
Dave's original RFC 1603 text (that I carried forward into RFC 2418) bears
little resemblance to the process/considerations described in this ID.
This ID may be describing how we should start to view the meaning of th
Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 11.10.2013
Last Call For the General Area
I-D reviewed: draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
++
Hi Pete and Jari,
The documents provide important examples which are real within IETF, and
needs to be studied/analysed more as case studies. Su
AB,
I'm very close to take offense by the statement "...WGs' Chair just
follow room's consensus, or f2f participants arguments".
We have maybe 200+ working group chairs, ADs and other people that
need at a rate, from several times a week to maybe once a months make a
"consensus calls". I'm certa
Hi Pete,
I object if the draft excludes remote participants opinions/feedbacks, the
IETF WG list is the main place for measuring consensus not a physical
limited room located in a region. Some WGs' Chair just follow room's
consensus, or f2f participants arguments, which is not best practice
relati
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 o
On 10/8/13 8:56 AM, t.p. wrote:
1) It does not state its target audience until, perhaps, the reference
in the Conclusions, to WG Chairs. [...] Are
ADs assumed to be above and beyond the considerations in this I-D:-(
An excellent point. No, *every* consensus caller in the IETF should in
m
A small comment in-line.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>> The abstract says:
>>
>> The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work
>> through a consensus process, taking into account the different views
>> among I
True, it was mostly a reaction to the IETF's tendency to over-proceduralize
everything, and an inclination to voting. The main issue I have been
concerned with since then, and something this draft helps with, is
redefinition of "rough consensus" to manipulate WG outcomes. WGs need to
get beyond th
> As I noted in my review of the draft, the document has a core flaw in
> its sense of history. It has invented an interpretation of "rough
> consensus" that was not part of its original formulation.
>
> I consider the current focus on reconciling minority views to be quite an
> excellent enhan
On 10/7/2013 10:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The abstract says:
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work
through a consensus process, taking into account the different views
among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on
technical matters. In particular, th
Hi,
I think this is an excellent draft and have already sent a pointer of it to
colleagues in other organizations as stuff to consider.
And although it has been eons since I chaired anything in the IETF, it
perfectly matches my recollection of what humming and rough consensus was all
about.
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
You should see a last call announcement soon, and both me and Pete look
forward to your feedback.
As a semi-newbie (2 meetings, a few years worth of remote participation),
I found this document useful. It clearified my understanding of "rough
consensus".
On 10/08/2013 07:56 AM, t.p. wrote:
3) References to working groups with 100 active participants sound like
a chimera. I track quite a number of lists, and some have about five
active participants. (Some Working Group Last Calls attract one or even
zero responses; the reactions of chairs to thi
it wrong. As here.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick"
To: "Mark Nottingham"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus
> On 10/6/13 7:30 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > This is a VERY us
> Glad to hear it - I think this is an enormously useful document.
> I'm wondering if wg chair training at an upcoming meeting can't
> be spent on it. Vancouver's too soon, but what about London?
Good idea.
Jari
Hi,
I definitely agree that this is a really useful document. Lots of good
background and general considerations. But 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
The draft lea
I agree with Melinda, IETF WG Chair is the key to practice guiding the
group to clear consensus, otherwise guide them to best/productive
discussions related to improvements in the work or in the consensus.
AB
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 10/6/13 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko
On 07/10/2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> I would be really disappointed by this. Indeed, my primary target was not at
> all new or casual participants; it was really intended for the dedicated
> folks and the chairs. I hope this is the start of a serious discussion in the
> IETF, not
On 10/6/13 7:30 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
This is a VERY useful document, and I look forward to compelling my WG
participants to read it, with a pop quiz afterwards.
I've been exceedingly satisfied to hear this sort of thing from you and
the other folks who posted and talked to me about
This is a VERY useful document, and I look forward to compelling my WG
participants to read it, with a pop quiz afterwards.
The only issue I see is its length; while dedicated IETFers won't have a
problem reading such a lengthy document, the people who could benefit most -
new, potential or cas
+1. I've referred people to earlier versions already.
i have found it quite useful in venues other than the ietf. go for it.
and thanks, pete.
randy
On 10/6/13 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> My goal is to publish it as an Informational RFC. It is an
> explanation of principles and how they can be applied to productively
> move IETF discussions forward. While there is no change to IETF
> processes or any presumption that guidance from this documen
25 matches
Mail list logo
