THere is one nuance that is worth noting. It is not for the case of a
controversial document.
Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether
the working group even cares about the document. I have had several
cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there was almost no
response on the mailing list. In the absence of decent indication, I as
chair feel compleed to say "no, I do not see enough support to adopt /
advance / ... this document".
In that situation, even +1s can help. (And yes, I do watch for the case
of all the +1s coming from the same company as the author, and then
start judging whether they are folks who participate, along the lines
Warren outlined.)
Yours,
Joel
On 2/27/2020 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net
<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of
retrieving judgement from real group of folks who understand given
proposal.
We do. It’s called “substantive comments.”
"+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.
Actually, the purpose of humming is not to make a decision, but to
figure out whether there is general consensus. If you ask for a hum
and you get a 50-50 response, there probably isn’t consensus, and you
might just say “we don’t have consensus” and go on to figuring out how.
If the “no” hum has no loud participants, you might say “looks like
we’re good to go, we’ll confirm on the list.” If there’s someone
humming loudly no when everybody else is in favor, and you don’t know
why they’re humming that way, that’s a good time to ask them if they are
willing to explain.
But bear in mind that humming does not take place on the mailing list,
and that consensus is called on the mailing list, not in the room.
On the mailing list, people pretty much have to raise objections
verbally. No amount of +1s should be considered meaningful at all.
The work is chartered; the wg is supposed to do it. If there are no
objections, and people feel the document is ready, then it should move
forward, whether there are +1s or not. If objections are raised, and
they are substantive (that is, not opinion or conjecture), then they
have to be addressed. They can be addressed by saying “we considered
that, and the working group as a whole agrees that the problem exists,
but it doesn’t need to be addressed because this document is only
applicable in a situation where the objection raised doesn’t matter.”
Or it can add text to address the objection, as Brian I think has
suggested. Or it can do additional work to address the problem, as
Brian has also suggested.
But the WG can’t simply ignore the objection. That is not what “rough
consensus” means.
_______________________________________________
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
