Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

To explain why I am looking for rough consensus.

As far as I am concerned we can publish work in the IRTF stream or
outside as papers, books, conference presentations &c.  In trying to run
this group on grounds that are similarto IETF WGs, I have always taken
this hybrid approach.  But when doing the work in the IRTF stream, I try
to adhere to the IETF type of procedures within the constraints defined
in the IRTF track.  While we could have decided to do a closed group of
distinguished scholars, engineers and activists with an authoritative
chair, or some other approach, at the beginning we decided on this
approach for the group.

This is also why I can be such a stubborn pain when I ask whether
someone really wants to turn their document over to the RG.  If this
were a personal draft, I would look at it differently.  I think we could
support personal RFCs that present an individual argument. I would still
look for it to well formed and cover all the issues before sending it
on, but would not look for rough consensus.

I think we can reach rough consensus, even when we disagree, without
watering the content down to pabulum.  It is harder and, at least to my
mind, is part of the exercise we are engaged in. In a RG document, we
should be able to discuss all relevant sides of the issue, especially if
our purpose is to inform.

thanks

avri


On 17-Sep-19 11:02, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking as usual only for myself (but I am employed by the Internet
> Society).
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>   And this boils down a bit to “Whose document is it anyway?”  RGs have some latitude on this, by the way: this document does not need to be a consensus view.  But if it is, then our differences should be explored.
>>
> I simply don't understand why that self-imposed rule is being followed
> in this case anyway.  It has been long clear, in my opinion, that the
> authors of this document have a strong view they wish to press, and
> that they will do so.  Several of us have extremely serious
> reservations about that view (for my part, I have given up on making
> those arguments, because I was unsatisfied with the way they were
> addressed and I just don't have the time to invest to continue to
> press the point).  In such an environment, a consensus document will
> either be too watery to be interesting or else will not really
> represent consensus.  The solution to such a dilemma is surely to
> refuse the conditions that make it possible.  No?
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>