Re: how to contact the IETF
Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 13:41 UTC
Return-Path: <mshore@cisco.com>
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 A5EA93A6C94 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:41:50 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uX-GJBzLoH7h for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9812A3A6C86 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,186,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="36570572"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2009 13:41:52 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1ADfqlK028013; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:52 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1ADfqvL019887; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:41:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:52 -0500
Received: from 10.98.54.215 ([10.98.54.215]) by xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:41:51 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.0.0.071130
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:50 -0500
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
From: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C5B6EE4E.2F7C%mshore@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: how to contact the IETF
Thread-Index: AcmLhVM6/27vAjiJAUuz9miORpjfpg==
In-Reply-To: <20090210122039.GD13560@shinkuro.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2009 13:41:52.0299 (UTC) FILETIME=[5498EFB0:01C98B85]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1144; t=1234273312; x=1235137312; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mshore@cisco.com; z=From:=20Melinda=20Shore=20<mshore@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20how=20to=20contact=20the=20IETF |Sender:=20 |To:=20Andrew=20Sullivan=20<ajs@shinkuro.com>,=20<ietf@ietf .org>; bh=QnWX/+kazD+w4Nye0FYBmvLcltjiT4OK3/UaHNFFhOw=; b=n+dJUpdig+awWRs8nn5b8tJAHI0SN8RR8YkGeqQGM7+k0Dnt1wCK/i5YkO wvghPShBKyXP6RxcwR8Oa/hOgeY19B6CxQLqdgJKFd7HD49ZP/C9RjkbKHk5 jGYT83UKit;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=mshore@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
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 13:41:50 -0000
On 2/10/09 7:20 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are > not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made, > during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent > support for the document. Under classical consensus decision-making there's a prerequisite that the participants have some investment in the process itself and that they actively participate. Drive by "I'm against it!" posts almost certainly don't qualify as participation - there's absolutely no opportunity there for negotiation and compromise. I don't think I'm splitting hairs, here, or being process-y beyond what the situation requires. Consensus process can produce very good results when it's done well and it can produce crap and deadlock when it's not. My own opinion is that the IETF does consensus very, very badly indeed, in large part because there's some confusion about what it actually is. And frankly, weighing the "apparent support for the document" by virtue of the drive-bys is a lot more like voting than not. Melinda
- Re: Ietf Digest, Vol 9, Issue 25 Alex Loret de Mola
- Re: how to contact the IETF Alex Loret de Mola
- Re: how to contact the IETF Ofer Inbar
- Re: how to contact the IETF Andrew Sullivan
- Re: how to contact the IETF Melinda Shore
- Re: how to contact the IETF Andrew Sullivan
- Re: how to contact the IETF Andrew Sullivan
- Re: how to contact the IETF Melinda Shore
- Re: how to contact the IETF Andrew Sullivan
- RE: how to contact the IETF Ed Juskevicius
- Re: how to contact the IETF Cullen Jennings
- RE: why to contact the IETF Lawrence Rosen
- Re: why to contact the IETF Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: why to contact the IETF Brian E Carpenter
- Re: how to contact the IETF Wes Hardaker