Re: Hum theatre

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E744511E8113 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaqf3qDvNF51 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1628011E80E2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUnw1Fj21Qr0mtcOYaIkAndBHDxNpdNXM@postini.com; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:49:27 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768901B82E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C10190043; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:49:26 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Hum theatre
Thread-Topic: Hum theatre
Thread-Index: AQHO22BhGKFt+ggES0WOgGuHFm4V3ZoZl34AgAACZoCAAElPAIAAJbYAgACHqYCAAHeHgA==
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:49:25 +0000
Message-ID: <5B651AEE-BE7F-489B-83BE-38B9773A82F5@nominum.com>
References: <527AF986.4090504@dcrocker.net> <CAHBU6iuDXQok_QRZe7BL__Vmkn447vUCSViDgrVkaedKAHcnfw@mail.gmail.com> <m2bo1w29zw.wl%randy@psg.com> <527B3F62.3030005@qti.qualcomm.com> <CAL02cgRNTCuQWXsZQOKKpMtPa09PYhFj5FncghOmORsZ8hb13A@mail.gmail.com> <527BD0D1.4000708@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <527BD0D1.4000708@qti.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <37BB366DBF917247AB482385EC298273@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:49:34 -0000

On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> It is true that consensus (rough or otherwise) is a state, and that state can always change. But consensus should be on a particular point and it must be relatively stable; it shouldn't be claimed on some broad platitude for which nobody knows the details, and it shouldn't change unless new information is brought into the mix.

Why not?  Claiming consensus on a broad platitude may well be very constructive from the perspective of gaining momentum in actually doing something, not only within the IETF but outside of the IETF.   It's true that it doesn't have much effect beyond that, but just because a thing has only effect A and not effect B does not mean that it has no effect.