Subject: Consensus? #746 3.4 IAOC decision making

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:20:21 +0100

It seems that we are now more-or-less agreed that "less is more" when it 
comes to quorum, majority rules and so on - here's a proposed minimum 
version of what is in section 3.4:

3.4  IAOC Decision Making

   The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.  If unanimity
   cannot be achieved, some decisions may be made by voting.

   The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making
   rules, including its rules for quorum, conflict of interest and
   breaking of ties.  These rules will be made public.

   All IAOC decisions shall be recorded in the IAOC minutes and
   published regularly.

(The last paragraph is actually the subject of another ticket. I'll leave 
it to the editors to pick the best one.)

OK?

                   Harald

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:54:29 -0500

Harald,

Close, but "no".  You don't want to say "some decisions may be
made by voting" since it leaves a loose end about how that
decision is made.  You might say any of 

	"...the IAOC may, by consensus, conclude that it should
	make a particular decision by voting"  or
	
	"...the IAOC chair may decide to resolve a particular
	matter by voting" or
	
	"...if the IAOC concludes that the matter should be
	resolved, rather than continuing discussion until
	consensus can be achieved, the decision will be made by
	voting"

   "..., the decision will be made by voting."

or, any of probably a dozen other things, noting that none of
the above are the same in practical terms.  But please don't say
"some decisions" and leave the question as to how to determine
which are appropriate to fall into "some" completely open.  That
just invites time-wasting procedural haggling.

   john

--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 23:20 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It seems that we are now more-or-less agreed that "less is
> more" when it comes to quorum, majority rules and so on -
> here's a proposed minimum version of what is in section 3.4:
> 
> 3.4  IAOC Decision Making
> 

[...]

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:56:21 -0500

>    "..., the decision will be made by voting."

<hat editor=on>

Well, Bert said that we were going with Harald's suggested text, but
his note and John's crossed in the mail, and I think that John raises
a valid point here.

For the purposes of getting something that might suffice into the
draft that Bert and I intend to ship this morning, I'm going to go
with John's last option (if the IAOC can't achieve a unanimous
decision, it falls back to voting), and leave all the rest of the text
in as Harald stated it.  I think that this is consistant with other
discussion up to this point, and we can of course fix it if it turns
out that this is not what the community wanted.

</hat>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:11:52 +0100

"if consensus cannot be achieved, the decision will be made by voting" 
seems simplest to me.

It leaves the IAOC in control of how it decides that it cannot achieve 
consensus - and, in particular, I think it leaves it free to decide to 
shelve a decision until consensus can be achieved if THAT is appropriate - 
which I think was the intent of "some decisions".

Sheer wordsmithing: Would you consider "If the IAOC cannot achieve 
consensus, the IAOC may decide by voting" to be reasonable?

Note the change of "will" to "may" - reinforcing the point above - and, 
mostly as a matter of style, using active voice.

                  Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:39:00 +0100

> "if consensus cannot be achieved, the decision will be made by voting" 

Yes
    Brian