Subject: [Softwires] Relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:22:45 -0400

I have been advised privately by a couple of people that I erred in my 
description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting. 
Support for MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.

I was startled at the meeting by how much support 4rd-U got, given that 
Remi is the only one who defends it on the list. I guess that affected 
my judgement of the numbers -- it just looked like a room-full of hands, 
comparable to the showing for MAP.

Sorry for the misdirection.

Tom Taylor

---

From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:31:59 +0200

> comparable to the showing for MAP.

I'm with you - but what I was missing was the question "how many of you 
read all 3 drafts and understands them", followed by "those of you, who 
raised your hand, which one do you support".

In this way we would probably easily find the way out.

Room full of hands was political voting, I'm afraid.

My question is, can we do it here, over mailinglist? :)

Cheers, Jan

---

From: Maoke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:48:27 +0000

hi Tom,

a neutral point: as a person who were not in the venue (but only through
listening and jabber), i also heard it seemed some, never joining either
mail list or venue discussion, held up their hands. i doubt they care the
techniques itself.

it is a question mark if the comparable number shows there is no rough
consensus. but logically i do agree with Ralph, that it was hard to
conclude the rough consensus through the numbers. voting is surely never an
unbiased estimation method for the consensus. ;-)

regards,
maoke

2012/4/4 Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>

> description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting. Support
> for MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.
>
> Remi is the only one who defends it on the list. I guess that affected my
> judgement of the numbers -- it just looked like a room-full of hands,
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

---

From: Maoke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:14:53 +0000

2012/4/4 Jan Zorz @ go6.si <[email-masked]>

> My question is, can we do it here, over mailinglist? :)

+0.5. i heard the chair said at the close of the meeting that the mailing
list vote would be done within one week. but again, it is a voting, a
political method, as i mentioned, not an unbiased estimation for the rough
consensus. logically it is strange to me that a group of people playing the
vote but without the game rule for the vote.

vote is a way of reaching a certain result. if we don't like to make
endless voting circles, let's follow the rule of voting: majority wins.

cheers,
maoke

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:38:52 +0200

Le 2012-04-04 à 03:22, Tom Taylor a écrit :

> I have been advised privately by a couple of people that I erred in my description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting. Support for MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.

Right.
That's a fact.

> I was startled at the meeting by how much support 4rd-U got, given that Remi is the only one who defends it on the list.

Actually not the only one.

> I guess that affected my judgement of the numbers -- it just looked like a room-full of hands, comparable to the showing for MAP.

There was indeed support from all sides of the room.
That's a fact.

All documents as experimental was the plan if no consensus on a single design.
Changing the plan because some are disappointed of having the WG didn't go their way wouldn't be justified.

Regards,
RD