Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 06 November 2013 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 CB7B211E8188 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:52:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 hSLfvbwCQCqn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3418F11E8132 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z10so10395694pdj.19 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TfgxuyPQb3ILP6uW3FCPOGx+KnQoVCHdF/HFpJMU9yc=; b=hV/nOy5zKw8sslTUw5hEY1eCKU8tR504BapylUdSvP0mUo4M8RAqJBr1dwlIqPsdqf Md5KEKNBMudrDPL7YBwFx2SVmcd8Dl6Ktt+4TACi+m/DCxmi3m7BElJmeCyyh2XfBgle WzGPFv1F9nDaa9a/T2WtWksdUb6LnlRIsl+J1e4MfHU/BCv5VByOR14Q8JtN8rTeVs7i zTLGLpvVsOtj1fvNBmYyJ9tL87HUDCsNUMNl0rfK7Hf7VIv+xWoOQWSN4aI0TVU7UQj8 eHD+2can5h9mYG1VDZcB/fZELTUdLoj31QAriZ++oADRD8f/BLNnwNmglE5su6betMPl l8Gw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm22ErREdcbVBSQ7xDyFpLQ9NYyt6zdwjqjUvX94dBK/CszNEQD9t07kLm1oLEXS/3HJymk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.162.195 with SMTP id yc3mr4967658pab.64.1383756725617; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.19.98 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:67c:370:168:98b0:4653:c5d6:d455]
In-Reply-To: <527A72A8.6080408@gmail.com>
References: <527A5EF8.2020705@dcrocker.net> <527A72A8.6080408@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:52:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1h8-dFH1MQ+Rhy3Hk0snR1=Lkun2e0MN_hTJNkzHfC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6dc1a816229c04ea84f817"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <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, 06 Nov 2013 16:52:14 -0000

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm a fan of consensus decision-making processes and will generally -
> but not always - advocate for their use.  I think that this is one
> of those "not always" cases.


Well said. I concur. The consensus principle is sound but its not an
absolute. I think that the matter at hand demanded action which would not
have completed quickly under a normal consensus seeking WG driven process.
What we have now will be tractable, and reflects wider society norms and
expectations. We can improve from here.

I'd like to congratulate the people who worked on this solution for getting
to somewhere fast which can hopefully quench emerging problems.

It saddened me hugely when I learned we needed this. It pleased me much
that we got to somewhere this quickly.

-G