Re: how to contact the IETF

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 10 February 2009 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864E928C1C5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:57:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d+M681R4OfO9 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wes.hardakers.net (dcn236-43.dcn.davis.ca.us [168.150.236.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B223A6B7E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (wlap.dyn.hardakers.net [127.0.0.1]) by wes.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CFA39A478; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:57:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
Organization: Sparta
References: <mailman.81.1234221068.5094.ietf@ietf.org> <789dbae90902091529t2b419cf5jc87bb7fb65564c5@mail.gmail.com> <20090209234503.GN376@mip.polyamory.org> <20090210122039.GD13560@shinkuro.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:57:28 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20090210122039.GD13560@shinkuro.com> (Andrew Sullivan's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:20:39 -0500")
Message-ID: <sdprhq4con.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:04:28 -0800
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:57:26 -0000

>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:20:39 -0500, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> said:

AS> I'm not sure I agree with that claim.  It's true that decisions are
AS> not made by counting votes.  Decisions _are_ supposed to be made,
AS> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent
AS> support for the document.

And the question is: did all those people writing in read and understand
the draft and fully understand the issue?  Or are they just
regurgitating a "do this" announcement.  How do you weigh a bunch of
uninformed responses against a fewer number of informed ones.

Personally, I'm not sure I agree the draft is good to go precisely
because I haven't read enough information on both the draft, the
potential patent and the pseudo-grant so I haven't voiced my opinions
about it (until now...  whooops).

We ask all the time in the IETF meetings "who's read the draft".  We
rarely follow up low-number responses with questions of "who believes
it's ready for publication" when the number of readers is very low.
That's the situation we're in now: a lot fewer people have read and
understand the various documents than are weighing in on the subject.

Do we consider consensus based on "+1" comments or based on the opinions
of only the more informed readers.  And what do we do when it becomes
impossible to determine who is who?
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.