Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

First, let me say that I think that this discussion of consensus is a
distraction. The fundamental problem with this document is that it's not
clear why it exists at all. That is what needs to be resolved.

With that said, my specific objection to this new text is the claims of
what is consensus in the STS community or in the IETF, because this
document doesn't present any evidence that would suffice to support a claim
of "consensus" or "general agreement".

More detailed response below:


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear Eric,
>
> On 9/28/19 11:09 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Niels,
> >
> > Thanks for posting this.
> >
> > I don't however, think that it addresses my primary concerns. It seems
> to me that the major change is that you now make explicit claims about the
> consensus of Science and Technology scholars and then some softer set of
> claims about what the IETF thinks.
>
> Exactly, this follows my discussion with you and Eliot in which you both
> mentioned that these conclusions seemed obvious.
>

I agree that they are obvious, but what does that have to do with consensus
or lack thereof?


> Neither of these claims of consensus seems to be supported by any real
> evidence,
>
> I think we have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. This work
> resulted, as stated in the doc, from participant observation, interviews
> and exchanges on mailinglist and during research group sessions.  The work
> is further structured by contextualizing it with a the literature review.
> You don't seem to appreciate this, or see this as valid research methods,
> which is fine of course, but then it will be hard for us to agree.
>

You seem to be putting words in my mouth here because I never said anything
about not seeing this as valid research methods.

Consensus and general agreement are properties of a group and particular of
some large fraction of a group holding a particular opinion. I don't see
you presenting any evidence along those lines at all. Note that it's not
impossible to do this (see, for instance surveys of the scientific or
economic community on specific points, or large-scale literature reviews
that count up the papers with a certain view). However, this document does
not seem to contain any of that.



> Furthermore, it is also not stated that this documents provides evidence.


Well, then it shouldn't make claims like this.

-Ekr