Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 DCA2611E81DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:33:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 WX9fYEKseqou for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2988B11E81B4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:33:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v10so10444332pde.15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:33:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e6eikrLG1ZBQ7a7NjE/1syWyP6gtdp5pVZ6FysUoecE=; b=jnHJIv9zJo8oyq9Ciq06YOsxm8fNl/UOlGHO6NzQ7Uxw+i5bDKdV2gXiv/ChFQTVfj 4bKyNezdAF1/hvHPerghOzYUOxZSgy+TVL+eSrliur2lLAk6K7d3k8VUdbTS4eYnlTal aBe2ApA8xNTDSGW5FHEWspUQY2tFcad7ASSmeQTlmJPzQjqxiYindThe/UsXXFQ9Ta5B TI1FBeb42ypC9TGtQAZHHHMkKFvleqnB3wgjdCNKGoUFiy1+mta6mEcZdxdNk9h4NCA7 2wGQQd1Lt7rq11YS9Dzwb61ijyil0nntc9r6u/bAkAwULaHsdI48tBfNVJu6Rb52/dtp kpVA==
X-Received: by 10.66.150.69 with SMTP id ug5mr5129444pab.55.1383759194461; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:160:655f:664c:edd9:dba4? ([2001:67c:370:160:655f:664c:edd9:dba4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bp5sm42752445pbb.18.2013.11.06.09.33.12 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:33:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <527A7D57.80301@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:33:11 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process
References: <20131106172420.258E318C10A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20131106172420.258E318C10A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 17:33:18 -0000

On 11/06/2013 09:24 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I'm wondering if the translation of this is: 'it's OK in this case because I
> (mostly) agree with the outcome', which of course will inevitably lead
> (someday) to: 'if we ever do a non-consensus decision, and I'm on the losing
> side of that one, I won't be anywhere near as happy that we threw out that
> particular baby'.

Not really.  It's just that my experience has been that
1) it's absolutely the case that the IETF does not reach
all "management" decisions through consensus decision-
making processes, and 2) it is impossible to reach consensus
among thousands of people of diverse backgrounds on nearly
any non-trivial matter on which reasonable people can
disagree, and relying on the ability to do so leads to
either calcification or disingenuous wording of questions.

Melinda