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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 10/9/13 5:20 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 1.  No matter how you slice the definition of rough consensus, if the
> chair does not act in a fair and balanced way, the outcome will be
> incorrect.  This is what the appeals process is for, and I would suggest
> mentioning it, perhaps in some detail.
>    

I do allude to this at the end of section 3, and I've highlighted it a 
bit better with one of the edits Dave suggested. But every time I tried 
to elaborate the "detail", I found myself talking more about the theory 
of appeals rather than the theory of consensus. I'm open to some 
suggested text if you have some.

> 2.  The case of Section 7 is, as you say, a mind bender.  I would
> suggest adding another use case: what if those 100 people write their
> own draft.  Can they use the exact same process to get the draft adopted
> and approved, so long as they answer the technical issues that arise?
> In other words, if there are multiple valid alternatives, and one suits
> one vendor group and another suits another, can there be just one
> standard?  At the neck of the hourglass, perhaps so?  What happens in
> this case, from your point of view?  What makes group (a) more special
> than group (b)?
>    

Though I think your example adds delightfully to the mind bender, I'm 
inclined to avoid it. At one level, 100 proposed drafts is no different 
than 100 proposed objections, though I would contend that if the drafts 
are actually well written, they would have to have good reasoning as to 
why the WG's original choice was not the best one. One way to sort your 
proposed mess is for the chair to go back to the charter of the WG and 
see which proposal actually meets the charter requirement. Or the chair 
can make the question about who the assigned document editor is. But 
really what your proposing is just a step worse into the "pathological 
WG" problem. And really we could do this ad infinitum. (I'm reminded of 
the old George Carlin routine about his days in Catholic school and "Ask 
the priest" day: "So, Father, say you haven't received your Easter 
communion. And it's Pentecost Sunday, the last day. And you're on a ship 
at sea. And the chaplain goes into a coma. But you wanted to receive. 
And then it's Monday, too late. And then you cross the international 
dateline...".) The fact is that though rough consensus is a resilient 
process, it's not bulletproof to every attack. This document can only go 
so far into how it deals with problems. I've added a good bit to that 
section to address Ted's comments. Hopefully you find that satisfying.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]