Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 06 November 2013 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 4345E21F9F7F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SFAZP--5bc7J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED2021F9F40 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.164.241] (dhcp-a4f1.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.164.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA6J1t26021059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:01:59 -0800
Message-ID: <527A920D.3010308@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:01:33 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Subject: Re: Respecting the IETF rough consensus process
References: <527A5EF8.2020705@dcrocker.net> <31901b80b812d64cc46bb03e4a2eaf8c.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <31901b80b812d64cc46bb03e4a2eaf8c.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:02:00 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 19:02:07 -0000

On 11/6/2013 10:52 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>    If there is actually "pretty obvious and massively strong support" then
> there is not only rough consensus, there is some pretty solid consensus.

There seems to be some common confusion here.

There's a difference between my or your personal belief about a state of 
affairs, such as what a group feels, versus the formal mechanism of 
assessing it.  I merely offered my personal opinion.

What's needed is the formal mechanism of explicitly and formally 
engaging in the consensus process that is well-established in the IETF. 
  This requires a call, it requires processing feedback publicly and 
carefully, and it requires an on-the-record assessment of the responses.


> And then there's no need to assign a facilitator to track and resolve
> issues. We're done.

Possibly, but probably not.  We have already seen quite a bit of 
critical feedback.  Not just from me.  There is no record of any of it 
getting processed accountably, with respect to the document.

I say that in spite of the fact that some of the changes I suggested did 
make it into the current draft.  But it was a black box (ie, not public 
and not accountable) process.

We're not supposed to work that way.


>    But the sentiment expressed above is unfortunate I think because it
> dismisses dissent and just pay lip service to addressing the concerns
> that dissent represents. You're talking about entering into a supposedly
> consensus building process with the notion that the decision is already
> made.

I am doing no such thing.  I said massive support for doing something.

I didn't say I know there's massive support for the current text (though 
it won't surprise me if there is that) but I also said there is a 
requirement for processing concerns.

And for reference, I'll repeat that there is also the requirement to vet 
the current text with legal and human resources experts.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net