Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:50:55 -0500

Yaakov,
 
    Here's the text that says "all that"...
 
"It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are 
 opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants 
 on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even 
 strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of 
 change."
 
    The clear implication here is that we could choose to regard
the 20 expressed 'nays', even  strong nays, as atypical among
the silent majority - if that assumption suits our purpose.  Or, we
could assume the reverse...
 
    The current process requires weighing of voices, not weighing
of the supposed opinions of the silent.
 
--
Eric

  _____  

From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:25 PM
To: Gray, Eric; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

>   However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either
way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of
the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.

Wow, did we say all that?
 
All we are saying is that for the issue we are discussing
there is no WG. The only list that is open to its discussion 
is the general list, where there is no support.
 
However, quite a large number of people who actively participate
in IETF WGs (people who are interested in working on technical topics, 
but not on the internal workings of the IETF) who want the process
changed.
 
We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary
meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on this list.
Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people who prefer
working in the terminal room or touring in the evenings,
but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding out what
MOST IETF participants want than only reading this list.
 
I fail to see how this is equivalent to allowing authors or chairs 
to decide for themselves what should be done.
 
Y(J)S

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

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:48:14 -0500

>  strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of 

While I can't speak for everyone else, this seems correct to me.  "Do I 
have anything useful or enteresting to add?" and "Do I think that my 
input will change the output?" must both evaluate to "Yes" before I post 
to any discussion.  I occasionally post for humor or interest, but 
generally I follow the discussion and stay out of it unless I believe it 
to be going badly awry.

   To be blunt, do we want every question to be answered by several 
thousand AOL "Me too"'s?  The silent masses are silent because they 
don't have anything useful to add, and believe that an endless stream of 
agreements would do nothing useful except test our bandwidth.

   We do, on the other hand, chime in when necessary.  So, it is "good" 
and "right" and "fair" to assume that a public question with a default 
answer has concensus, if the only response is a minor negative one.  I, 
and I believe many others, will simply move on to the next post when we 
see the question, if we agree with the default answer.

   A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we 
post the question

   "Will the sun rise tomorrow?  We think yes."

  then we can expect a small number of disagreements, a small number of 
arguments from readers who didn't understand the question, a small 
number of AOL's, a small number of "Of course, you twit!  Why are you 
wasting our time with this?" and nothing else.  The vast majority of the 
readers will not reply, because they agree with the default answer, and 
they have other things to do.
   If there is a reader who disagrees in his mind, but is constrained by 
cultural conditioning or natural manners from speaking out, how are we 
supposed to coax his "better way" from this reader?  We have already 
posited that he/she/it won't speak up.
   I submit that the IETF culture should, by policy, assume that anyone 
subscribed to an IETF list will speak out on any question if he/she/it 
thinks it right.

> of the supposed opinions of the silent.

Yes, _but_ anyone who agrees will not argue.  You will only get argument 
from those who disagree with the post.  Unless you want to change the 
culture here to require an answer from every reader, on every question, 
thus adding significantly to our daily workload.  I'd rather not.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:38:33 -0600

Thus spake "Sandy Wills" <[email-masked]>
>> opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the 
>> IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays, 
>> could be considered a clear consensus in favor of change."
>
> have anything useful or enteresting to add?" and "Do I think that my input 
> will change the output?" must both evaluate to "Yes" before I post to any 
> discussion.  I occasionally post for humor or interest, but generally I 
> follow the discussion and stay out of it unless I believe it to be going 
> badly awry.

I think this thread long ago passed into "badly awry", hence the volume of 
responses.

> thus adding significantly to our daily workload.  I'd rather not.

Very true for the original post, but once one person (or, in the instant 
case, a couple dozen) has argued with the OP, there is no way to determine 
which side the silent majority agrees with.  It is possible that there are 
thousands of people agree with Yakov but have cultural prohibitions on 
backing him, or it could be that there are thousands that don't agree but 
have no new points to add -- or both.  All we can measure are the people who 
do speak up.

Right now it looks like there is a very strong consensus against MS Word as 
an output format, a weaker one against it as an input format, and no real 
consensus yet about other options like HTML, OpenDoc, PDF/A, etc.

IMHO, the normative output text should remain the ASCII version, perhaps 
with UTF-8 to allow authors to add a native rendering of their name.  Any 
other output versions should be optional and explicitly non-normative. 
Input forms should remain the same as today plus optional UTF-8.  I think 
that's about as "progressive" as we'll likely build consensus for any time 
soon.  The bad artwork that this saddles us with is, IMHO, a feature and not 
a bug.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:20:16 +1100

Sandy Wills wrote:
	[..]
>   A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we post 
> the question
> 

Then you invite ridicule upon anyone who says "no".

However, consider this case: you post "Should we move to using MS Word?"
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts "No". Over the next few minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will receieve 
these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one quick glance, see
two positions staked out - one for MS Word, one against.

With which one does the silent majority agree?

cheers,
gja

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:35:02 -0500

grenville armitage wrote:

> hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will 
> receieve these two emails. Many of the human recipients will, in one 
> quick glance, see

Indeterminate, of course.  This is why, as so many people have pointed 
out time & time again, if concensus is to be requested or claimed, 
propositions on this list
    a) MUST be kept simple, and
    b) MUST include a default.

What you gave us is an example of a "discussion", which can include more 
than one topic, including more than one possible answer.  This should 
not be confused with, or used as justification for, a claim of concensus.

Eventually, we will all be exhausted by this interminal discussion, and 
someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with this job) 
will post a simple statement and ask if the statement has concensus.  No 
multiple choice, no discussion, just statement.  I hope it happens soon...

   "The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text format, plus 
WordStar version 2.0 of 4/1/1987.  Henceforth, all posters suggesting MS 
Word will be drug from their homes and stoned in the street."

   People who agree will mumble "yeah" under their breath and otherwise 
ignore the post.  People who disagree will reply on the list.  After two 
weeks, someone will compare the size of the subscriber list to the 
number of negative replies, and we'll all start gathering rocks together.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:59:40 +1100

>    b) MUST include a default.

My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default.

> What you gave us is an example of a "discussion",

What I demonstrated is that any posed question on a mailing list will, if it
solicits replies taking positions for or against, lead to an indeterminate
state when interpreted through logic that states "the silent majority agrees
with the position stated on the mailing list."  Every subsequent response to
the 'first' question will itself stake out a position, and you have no right
to assume the 'majority' care more about the 'first post' of the question than
the followups.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:53:41 -0500

(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and 
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)

>>> However, consider this case: you post "Should we move to using MS Word?"

A simple yes/no question, with no default given by the poster.  Those 
are your words, not mine.

>>> and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts "No".

This is, in your example, the first "choice" available, since the 
original question had no default/assumed answer.

>>> Over the next few minutes to

Thus we have a "discussion"

> My example was (a) simple, and (b) had a default.

    Please read your words again.  Your example was an open question, 
with no default, leading to a "discussion".

    Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough.  Okay, maybe that's 
because we don't use the same definitions for the words and phrases we 
are passing back and forth.

    You keep describing our "discussions", and I agree that, yep, that's 
the way our discussions work.  I keep trying to point out that this is 
different from how we "call for concensus", and you keep going back to 
"but that's not how our discussions work".  You're right, because a 
"discussion" is _different_ from a "call for concensus" (henceforth 
CfC), and we will never be able to REACH a concensus if you can't tell 
the difference.  (and I think that this confusion is one of the IETF's 
big problems)

For the sake of this discussion, here are a couple of working 
definitions.  Please let me know if you see a problem with them:

    A "Discussion" has many speakers, many viewpoints, many issues, many 
proposed solutions, and, well, discussion about them all, lasting for 
(sometimes) a long time.

    A "CfC" usually follows a "Discussion" and has ONE (count 'em) 
statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or 
decision, asking for agreement or disagreement.  It may or may not be 
bundled with justifying data or logic, as long as the readers can find 
the CfC.  This CfC is followed by a variable number of replies agreeing 
or disagreeing with the statement.  Once that is done, the group can 
take the results of that CfC and move forward, with either another 
discussion, or a further CfC, as seems useful.

If your example had been a _statement_ "We should move to MSWord", then 
that would have worked for a CfC.  (I believe that such a CfC would 
collect a large number of "No"s, with many of them giving reasons.) 
However, wording it as a question "Should we..." is asking for a 
discussion, not a CfC.  And we cannot ever reach a concensus if we can't 
  tell the two apart.

For the record, I believe that the Chair should issue a CfC on "We 
should allow non-ASCII graphics to accompany IDs and RFCs."  If, and 
only if, that CfC passes, we should explore what format those graphics 
might be.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:30:25 +0100

Sandy Wills wrote:

> someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with
> this job) will post a simple statement and ask if the
> statement has concensus.  No multiple choice, no discussion,
> just statement.  I hope it happens soon...

> "The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text format,
>  plus WordStar version 2.0 of 4/1/1987.  Henceforth, all
>  posters suggesting MS Word will be drug from their homes
>  and stoned in the street."
[...]
> and we'll all start gathering rocks together.

Without an opportunity to sell fake beards for this episode in
the "Life of Brian" the proposal could meet some resistance ;-)

Not new, see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/13554
or the clear http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/13658

                            Bye, Frank

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:21:52 +1100

Sandy Wills wrote:

	[..]
> decision, asking for agreement or disagreement.

"...asking for agreement or disagreement."

If it quacks like a question...

cheers,
gja

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 06:43:19 -0500

On Jan 5, 2006, at 18:35, Sandy Wills wrote:
>   People who agree will mumble "yeah" under their breath and  
> otherwise ignore the post.  People who disagree will reply on the  
> list.  After two weeks, someone will compare the size of the  
> subscriber list to the number of negative replies, and we'll all  
> start gathering rocks together.

Then there are people who will mumble, "that's so stupid/bad/foolish/ 
misguided, and virtually all of the many responses are negative,  
it'll never pass", and otherwise ignore the post.  I doubt I'm the  
only one who sometimes finds himself in that camp.

Then there are those who will mumble, "I don't care about this", and  
otherwise ignore the post.  Like I do for the majority of the IETF- 
wide last-call announcements on things like, say, IP over MPEG-2, or  
Calendar Access Protocol.

Personally, I object to the suggestion that my "vote" should be  
counted one way or another if I am silent.  At most, it should be  
counted as "no strong opinion".  Or should I now start responding to  
all the Last Calls with "I don't care about this, so please don't  
count me as supporting it"?

For an IETF-wide last call, I do think it's reasonable to assume that  
the proposing working group -- the "rough consensus" of the group,  
not necessarily every participant -- is indicating approval of the  
document by bringing it forward.  But that's a *small* bias in favor,  
not a large one.

Ken

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:02:21 -0500

Ken Raeburn wrote:
> Personally, I object to the suggestion that my "vote" should be  counted 
> one way or another if I am silent.  At most, it should be  counted as 
> "no strong opinion".  Or should I now start responding to  all the Last 
> Calls with "I don't care about this, so please don't  count me as 
> supporting it"?

We wouldn't count you as "supporting it".  We would count you as "not 
objecting".  That's all.

Maybe there's another way to put it.  How about:

    "I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following 
statement:  ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's 
going to be good enough for my grandchildren.  Please reply to this CfC 
if you object."

   Do we need to put into the CfC that we are assuming agreement, and 
that people who don't care don't have to respond?  I thought it obvious 
and understood by all (maybe that's my mistake, right there) that a CfC 
is a request to respond if you object.

    This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.  Many 
group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of 
getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't 
any, after a period of free discussion.
    It's the same as at a wedding, when the preacher asks "if anyone 
objects, speak now, or forever hold your peace."  A CfC is assuming an 
agreement (or don't-care), and only those who do NOT agree need to 
respond.  Any other response is undesired.  It's just noise that makes 
it harder to hear the useful "objection" responses.  When you got 
married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up and say 
"I'm okay with this marriage!"?  No, you wanted the entire room silent, 
so that you could hear any objection.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:15:14 -0600

So... here's the problem.

> one way or another if I am silent.  At most, it should be  counted as "no 
> strong opinion".  Or should I now start responding to  all the Last Calls 
> with "I don't care about this, so please don't  count me as supporting 
> it"?

Our technology support for "do we have consensus" stinks. We ask for 
feedback to a mailing list, knowing that "me, too" postings are (and should 
be) discouraged in most shared e-mail environments. What we get is exactly 
what you described - postings from a non-random subset of participants, and 
then we try to figure out what the sampling error is, and in which 
direction, based on not a lot more information. There is a safety mechanism, 
because when we REALLY miscount we can be appealed, but we don't use it 
often, and it's really an expensive mechanism to use.

Sometimes chairs even remember to say, "we also need to hear from people who 
AGREE", but not always. The mailing list archives would be even worse if 
everyone DID respond to all the Last Calls, so we need to be careful about 
what we ask for...

It shouldn't be a vote (we don't vote - I know you know this, because you 
put "vote" in quotes), but if we had some way to let people say "you know, I 
just don't care", that would help, too.

Spencer

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:28:43 +0100

--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting
> any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there aren't any,
> after a period of free discussion.
> respond.  Any other response is undesired.

In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of "no", so we're into the 
much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus-deciders that the 
naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or convincing the ones who asked 
for the "consensus call" that despite their strongly held convictions, 
there are good reasons why we shouldn't just do what they want.....

The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed - or rather 
- succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no present proposal 
that enjoys a strong consensus.

                   Harald

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:17:25 -0500

Hello;

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>
>
> --On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills  
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> getting
> In this case, we've already had the loud shouts of "no", so we're  
> into the much more tricky case of either convincing the consensus- 
> deciders that the naysayers are loud, argumentative loonies, or  
> convincing the ones who asked for the "consensus call" that despite  
> their strongly held convictions, there are good reasons why we  
> shouldn't just do what they want.....
>

To me, this is the trouble with such proposals.

If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is  
fair to say that the majority either
was in favor, or at least acquiesced. At least, if people complain  
later, you can say, "you should have spoken up when appropriate." (I  
suppose, for symmetry, that the same could be said against a proposal  
if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this  
must be rare indeed.)

But, as soon as there are _any_ objections, then people could remain  
silent saying to themselves "I agree" or "I don't care" or "I agree  
with the objections, which have been much better stated than I could  
do." You just don't know.

So, I regard it as improper to assume support either way from the  
"silent majority" if there is
any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have  
consensus in the face of objections, but
it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all  
the people who remain silent.

Regards
Marshall

> The CfC (if the original draft could be seen as one) has failed -  
> or rather - succeded most brilliantly in proving that there is no  
> present proposal that enjoys a strong consensus.
>
>                   Harald
>
>
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:50:41 -0500

>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> writes:

    Spencer> So... here's the problem.
    >> counted one way or another if I am silent.  At most, it should
    >> be counted as "no strong opinion".  Or should I now start
    >> responding to all the Last Calls with "I don't care about this,
    >> so please don't count me as supporting it"?

    Spencer> Our technology support for "do we have consensus"
    Spencer> stinks. We ask for feedback to a mailing list, knowing
    Spencer> that "me, too" postings are (and should be) discouraged
    Spencer> in most shared e-mail environments. What we get is
    Spencer> exactly what you described - postings from a non-random
    Spencer> subset of participants, and then we try to figure out
    Spencer> what the sampling error is, and in which direction, based
    Spencer> on not a lot more information. There is a safety
    Spencer> mechanism, because when we REALLY miscount we can be
    Spencer> appealed, but we don't use it often, and it's really an
    Spencer> expensive mechanism to use.

I'm not sure I consider this very broken.  If I'm reading a last call
and I have opinions that differ from the way the discussion is going,
I'm certainly going to speak up.  It seems to work fairly well in
practice at determining rough consensus when there is a rough
consensus to be determined.  It gives questionable results in cases
where the results are questionable; I'm not sure this a bug.

    Spencer> some way to let people say "you know, I just don't care",
    Spencer> that would help, too.

And what do we do with those people anyway?  How would it help me to
know there are 30 people who don't care?

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:52:28 -0500

Are you guys taking turns, saying the same thing over and over again?

For the record, I'm not taking sides in any of the current questions 
about ASCII/Word/AmiPro/etc, or DKIM, or the other discussions filling 
my inbox.  I'm trying to come up with a way for the participants in 
those discussions to determine if they are done yet.

I am proposing a formal construct, called a "Call for Concensus", or 
appreviated as "CfC" (because I'm lazy and can't spell that third word 
the same way two times in a row anyway), for a specific purpose: to 
determine if we have reached an agreement during a discussion.

It is _not_ used _IN_ a discussion, it is used when the discussers are 
tired of the endless circles that these discussions turn in, _AFTER_ all 
the different options have been mentioned.

In order for such a test to work, it MUST be posted as a statement, 
which can be agreed with, or not.  Simple enough.  In order to cut down 
on the noise level, you word the statement such that it includes the 
supposed-agreement.  People who agree don't need to reply.  People who 
don't care, either from lack of expertise or apathy, don't need to 
reply.  ONLY PEOPLE WHO OBJECT to that statement should reply to the 
CfC.  If you have a rough idea of how many people received the CfC post, 
and you can easily see how many people objected, then you can easily see 
if your statement does, in fact, state a concensus agreement.

I don't see how this can be too complicated for people who create software.

The CfC is not part of the "discussion".  It is a test to see if the 
discussion has had a result.

Is this a bad idea?  I don't think so, but I keep getting replies, from 
differing posters, with differing words, that all evaluate to "But 
someone will disagree, and then you can't tell...."  Yes, you can.

There are only four meaningful groups of people here, the matrix of 
care/don't care and agree/don't agree:

   Anyone who disagrees with the CfC statement, but didn't reply, is too 
apathetic to participate.  Don't count them, because they themselves 
don't think that their opinion is worth your time.

   Anyone who agrees, and did reply, has trouble understanding 
instructions like "Only reply to this CfC if you disagree".  Given that, 
should these people be making decisions for the group?.

   Who's left?  The two groups that we care about:

   Anyone who disagrees, and replies, will have their voices heard, 
because their opinion is the one asked for by the CfC.  If their 
objections (or volume) are significant, then the discussion will turn to 
ways to make progress while satisfying their concerns.

   Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say anything, 
is fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support.  The CfC 
will stand or fall based upon the size of the "disagree and replied" group.

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> 
> If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it is  fair 
> to say that the majority either
> if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but this  must 
> be rare indeed.)
> 
> any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't have  consensus 
> in the face of objections, but
> it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to all  the 
> people who remain silent.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:27:01 -0800

At 9:02 AM -0500 1/6/06, Sandy Wills wrote:
>When you got married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up and say "I'm okay with this marriage!"?  No, you wanted the entire room silent, so that you could hear any objection.

Hi,
	This is a digression.  Hit delete now unless you're willing to digress.	

	Speaking as a liturgical die-hard, let me just note that the affirmative
*is* asked in many forms of the marriage ceremony.  In the Episcopal church,
for example, the question takes this form:
 
(Celebrant)
Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?

(People)
We will.

(see http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/bocp4.htm for the full text)

	This requires that those who are present at the wedding take the affirmative step
of saying they will support the marriage, which is considerably more than "I'm okay with this".
For many who see marriage in sacramental terms, this single statement is why the sacrament
is a public one, rather than a private one.  The key sacramental act here is the commitment
of the two people to throw their lot in together and be a family; it does not need onlookers
(or even a celebrant, as the individuals can exchange vows without one).  But the public act
is a request for the support of the community for the marriage and is the public participation in the
sacrament.
	I think there is far too much treating of IETF documents like holy writ now, so
I not only would not draw a parallel here, I actively discourage any one else from doing so.
This, in other words, is pure digression.  Don't say I didn't warn you.
				
				Ted

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:12:08 +0100

Sandy,
experience shows that you would only create more traffic. The smart 
people who support the statement will not answer your call, but will 
comment what those who object will answer. As I doubt you can word a 
statement in such a way people who object may simply answer "no".....

There are ways to reach a true consensus, to address the users 
expectations, to come with neatly finished documents, etc. They are 
not the IETF ways. And they would not produce RFCs.

There is a growing consensus the general architecture is to change. 
This includes the architecture of the Internet SSDOs. PESCI is/was 
(?) an effort into that direction. IAB-discuss was another one. NSF's 
GENI is another one. WSIS' IGF will probably propose another one. 
Grassroots efforts are all over.  There are too many interests, 
habits, egos, creeds involved in the IETF. WG consensus by exhaustion 
+ IETF consensus by disinterest + IESG consensus by inability to 
share in every thing (the new architecture should be _mastered_ by a 
"standard" participant in one month training). This is at least a 
working status quo.

But nothing prevents you to create an ietf-poll.org site. To try to 
summarise the debates at hand as a single statement, with a 
"placet/non placet/placet juxta modum". To report the current results 
(I think you cannot advertise your site, but you can report in a 
debate such a poll). If this helps, it will take over. If it does 
not, I suspect you will have gained experience towards other possibilities.

NB: I think the most important response for a consensus is "placet 
juxta modum". There is _no_ consensus if there is a small reasonable 
number of them (unsatisfied supporters). They also remove the idea of 
a "winner", except general consensus, because they show "NP" people, 
some of their positions are listen to (without detailling). And show 
"P" people they are not the truth owners they often think they are. I 
tend to think that if we could force a vote on the IETF current 
system, "PJM" responses would be overwhelming.

All the best.
jfc

At 18:52 06/01/2006, Sandy Wills wrote:
>about ASCII/Word/AmiPro/etc, or DKIM, or the other discussions 
>filling my inbox.  I'm trying to come up with a way for the 
>participants in those discussions to determine if they are done yet.
>
>appreviated as "CfC" (because I'm lazy and can't spell that third 
>word the same way two times in a row anyway), for a specific 
>purpose: to determine if we have reached an agreement during a discussion.
>
>It is _not_ used _IN_ a discussion, it is used when the discussers 
>are tired of the endless circles that these discussions turn in, 
>_AFTER_ all the different options have been mentioned.
>
>which can be agreed with, or not.  Simple enough.  In order to cut 
>down on the noise level, you word the statement such that it 
>includes the supposed-agreement.  People who agree don't need to 
>reply.  People who don't care, either from lack of expertise or 
>apathy, don't need to reply.  ONLY PEOPLE WHO OBJECT to that 
>statement should reply to the CfC.  If you have a rough idea of how 
>many people received the CfC post, and you can easily see how many 
>people objected, then you can easily see if your statement does, in 
>fact, state a concensus agreement.
>
>Is this a bad idea?  I don't think so, but I keep getting replies, 
>from differing posters, with differing words, that all evaluate to 
>"But someone will disagree, and then you can't tell...."  Yes, you can.
>
>   Anyone who disagrees with the CfC statement, but didn't reply, is 
> too apathetic to participate.  Don't count them, because they 
> themselves don't think that their opinion is worth your time.
>
> instructions like "Only reply to this CfC if you disagree".  Given 
> that, should these people be making decisions for the group?.
>
> objections (or volume) are significant, then the discussion will 
> turn to ways to make progress while satisfying their concerns.
>
>   Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say 
> anything, is fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their 
> support.  The CfC will stand or fall based upon the size of the 
> "disagree and replied" group.
>
>
>Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>If there is a last call, and _nobody_ objects, then I think it 
>>is  fair to say that the majority either
>>if there are only objections, and absolutely no support, but 
>>this  must be rare indeed.)
>>any dissension at all. That doesn't mean that you can't 
>>have  consensus in the face of objections, but
>>it does mean that you can't just wave them away by pointing to 
>>all  the people who remain silent.
>>Regards
>>Marshall
>
>
>--
>Unable to locate coffee.
>Operator halted.
>
>

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:01:21 -0500

On Jan 6, 2006, at 09:02, Sandy Wills wrote:
>    This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.   
> Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way  
> of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that  
> there aren't any, after a period of free discussion.

If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how  
the IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there?

Ken

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:21:52 -0500

Ken Raeburn wrote:
>> of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that  there 
>> aren't any, after a period of free discussion.
> 
> If it's not a change, then there's no need for text suggesting how  the 
> IESG should judge consensus in this matter, is there?

Apparently not.

I entered into what looked to me like a discussion-becoming-an-argument 
with what seemed like a useful clarification of the "rules", but even 
the desirability of doing so seems to have to fight to establish 
"concensus".  That, to me, is more than I want to put on my plate.

I think I'll go back to lurking, and let those who are paid for this 
continue this discussion.

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:15:43 +0100

...
>   Anyone who agrees with the CfC statement, and doesn't say anything, is 
> fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support.  The CfC will 
> stand or fall based upon the size of the "disagree and replied" group.

That's pretty much how I've seen IETF consensus work over the years.
As Harald said, a straw poll can be very handy in getting an idea how
things are stacking up in the discussion, but the ultimate test is
whether the residual dissent at the end of the conversation is important
enough to matter. And that is the judgement that the IETF process leaves
to the deciders (WG Chairs or IESG in most cases) following a Last Call
message.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:08:36 -0800

Folks,

>> is fine, because the CfC doesn't need or want their support.  ...
> 

There are two, essential assumptions that serve as underpinnings for the IETF's 
rough consensus construct:

    1.  Participation in the IETF is dominated by those with sufficient 
expertise for making informed assessment, and

    2.  Participation in the IETF is dominated by those with sufficient interest
to ensure forward progress is made in a timely fashion.

Today's IETF is marked by massively more diversity than was present 15 years
ago. For most IETF activities, most IETF participants do *not* have very much
knowledge or interest.

While this violates the stated assumptions, it also means that such folk stay
pretty quiet, about most IETF activities.  For these cases, the "see who 
objects" model makes sense and appears to work acceptably...  once the basic 
competence of a proposal or specification is assessed.

However, many IETF activities draw the attention of these folk who lack
knowledge and/or lack a desire for making near-term progress (or any progress at
all.)  If a topic is sufficiently "interesting" it draws quite a few of these
people and the current model effectively gives them a veto.

We need to fix this.

      The IETF needs to modify its method of assessing rough consensus, to
      distinguish between those motivated to make timely progress and those with
      other agendas.  Of course, this needs to be accomplished in a way that
      continues to attend to basic technical and operational competence.

Other agendas include such sources of delay and distraction as expanding the
scope of the work, pressing for alternate solutions, or raising a myriad of
generic concerns that really are present for all new work.  (Hence, attending to 
them represents either a strategic issue for the IETF or an unsolvable problem.)

In other words, those trying to solve a particular problem in a competent
fashion, and to get it deployed in a timely manner, need to be able to make
progress efficiently.

Anyone, at any time, may expose a critical risk or critical failure in a
proposal or specification.  No IETF procedure should *ever* work against having
such exposures gain attention.

That said, the current IETF process allows delay and distraction for many 
reasons that are entirely secondary.

I believe that utility, quality and timely progress are not mutually exclusive 
and that a rather simple framework can accommodate all of them:

    1. A constituency is a group of otherwise-independent individuals seeking to 
produce a specification that provides a set of desirable enhancements or fixes 
an acknowledged set of problems.

    2. A charter specifies the scope, schedule and deliverables for a 
constituency's efforts.  Those claiming to be part of the constituency are 
committing to that scope, schedule and deliverables.

    3. On-going review and input by others are essential to a constituency's 
efforts.  Anyone can come up with a good idea or solve a difficult problem. This 
is a key lesson of the IETF.

    4. A particular bit of input that addresses a critical failing MUST be 
heeded, no matter when it is offered.

    5. Other bits of input MAY be heeded, when the constituency agrees that the 
input is within scope, does not endanger the schedule, and is supported by the 
constituency.  Otherwise the input MAY be deferred or even ignored.

    6. The chair(s) enforce these constraints.

Of course, any suggestion like this list of rules requires that the community be 
willing to exercise self-discipline, rather than permit individuals to veto 
valid group efforts.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:26:02 -0500

I strongly disagree with David's characterization of the IETF, his
characterization of how things should work, his claim that the problem
he has identified should be fixed and the proposed solution.

Consider this a vote of "wrong direction."  If it becomes apparent
that David is attracting significant interest in his proposal then I
will respond in more detail.  Until then I'll try and work on
directions of improving the IETF that I like better.  

the only reason I'm writing this message is that I don't want silence
to be taken as agreement in this instance.  Clearly if a number of
people come forward and agree with David then I must either provide
more constructive suggestions or accept that my objection will have
little weight.