IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 12:35 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 2CCA511E80E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, 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 GHwJNl5Zl-Kd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1452811E8178 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUlVNhqXEH3du+wd7rXAYeqJna/TAOt/w@postini.com; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:35:19 PDT
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 615851B82D5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 4108B190061; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:35:18 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1812\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5254E9EF.6010807@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:35:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B8F18391-6CEC-4A5B-A881-CFCD9E6BE602@nominum.com>
References: <20131007164829.16131.73595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008054041.0d74aa88@resistor.net> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA5FFA8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <5254CC15.3050802@gmail.com> <5254E7A3.8050507@pi.nu> <5254E9EF.6010807@gmail.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1812)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: IETF <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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:35:27 -0000

On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:30 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rough consensus - An agreement by almost everyone that the proposed
> 
> That's a lot like voting, I think.

It's worse than voting, because it encourages people to invite their friends to sway the consensus.   At least with voting you have the transparency of knowing who the electorate is.   So if this were what "rough consensus" meant, rough consensus would most often be won by whoever has the most friends, which in practice is probably whoever works for the biggest company.  So whatever "rough consensus" means, it can't mean "only a few people disagree."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email