Warren, Excellent note !!!
In the past I have been part of an employers forcing you to support a draft just to push it regardless if it was even in your area of interest ... leave alone expertise or your technical opinion about it. It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of retrieving judgement from real group of folks who understand given proposal. "+1" is just only one demonstration of it. Humming is another. Raising hands one more. We say there is no voting but while there is no formal ballot box nor even e-ballot version of it all of the above ways to gather "consensus" are examples of voting. Best, R. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:10 PM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:14 PM Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> 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 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari < > war...@kumari.net> > > > > > > ...%<...%<.... > > > > > > 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 > > > i...@ietf.org > > > 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 > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
