Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Alternative Decision Making Processes for Consensus-blocked Decisions in the IETF' to Experimental RFC

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:22:35 -0400 (EDT)

I think this is still not clear enough that it describes optional processes
that can be used *if desired* by a working group

e.g. the first sentence of abstract would be better if it said
something like:

    This document proposes an optional experimental set of alternative
    decision-making processes that can be used in IETF working groups if
    working group agrees to their use.
 
(btw - "proposes" shoudl be chnaged to "describes" before this gets
published)

the same in the introduction:
    This document puts forward a set of experimental mechanisms which
    for use in that small number of cases. 

would be better as:
    This document describes a set of optional experimental mechanisms
    which could be used by a working group in that small number of cases.

also:
    In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small
    number of cases take precendence over the IETF's normal mode of
    operation.

might be better as:
    In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small
    number of cases take precendence over the IETF's normal mode of
    operation. Specifically, these procedures are only to be
    used when a working group agrees to use them.

section 3 basically says the right thing "working groups should consider
using alternate decision making processes when  ..."  and
section 3.4 well defines a process -- but that conditionality is not
reflected in the abstract oand introduction

the rest of the ID looks ready to be an experimental RFC to me

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:33:49 -0400

>    used when a working group agrees to use them.
Define "agrees".  When a WG is blocked on consensus for a technical 
issue, and someone proposes using the alternative process to reach a 
decision, do you need consensus to use the alternative process? If so, 
I'm skeptical that people who have been stonewalling each other on the 
technical decision are going to agree to a process that means they don't 
get to stonewall any more.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                          |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                        |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                       |
|=================================================================|
|"If nobody believes what I say, I feel ineffective." "Oh, I don't|
|believe that."                                                   |
\=================================================================/

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:41 -0400 (EDT)

> get to stonewall any more.

the ID does go into a process to try to deal with this

Scott