On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:14 PM Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
[SNIP] > > It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I > don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't > change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I > don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously > organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but > when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it. Actually, when I see a message whose content is just "+1" (or something similar like "I support this"), and the sender hasn't been deeply involved in the conversation, I start thinking it is vote stuffing. If this happens repeatedly I become increasingly convinced of this. "We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code." - we don't vote. Having a thousand people who have not made good technical points / provided substantive text / review / contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way suddenly say "I support this" is not just meaningless, it is actively harmful - who are they? what do they know? what does their opinion matter? why did someone feel it necessary to recruit them? This is true for a bunch of *known* people from the same company / group / organization / similar all suddenly arriving and supporting or objecting to a position without good (and distinct!) reasons. Over time people build up credibility - if Brian Carpenter (or Randy Bush or Russ Housley or John Scudder or ...) simply adds a "I support foo" (or "+1") message to a thread it *does* carry weight; their statement isn't made in a vacuum - I consider if they have demonstrated previous knowledge *in the topic*, if they have made useful contributions, etc. before deciding if their comment *means* anything, and what bias it carries. I can spend all day supporting <insert some topic here>, but unless I have *demonstrated* knowledge, skillset and a track record, my support isn't useful.. W > Brian > > > Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or > > even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of > > the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will > > need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus). > > > > Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would > > still be running NCP or IPv4 :-) > > > > -éric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6 <[email protected]> on behalf of Warren Kumari > > <[email protected]> > > > > ...%<...%<.... > > > > It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards > > -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with > > - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this > > category... > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
