IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 10 October 2013 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@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 F2ABB21E811C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 un3vQZeISVAL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x236.google.com (mail-ee0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4DC21E8084 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e53so1478932eek.41 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=h2zSpgXtoC1eYsL3z1j+p3h/4bsnIWWo+QlDg/7E5VU=; b=nz1FPtjwy4Ftq4zsGe3qjs7vnlQFLMVwEvbIpn2mtprYwb/qI9QjsT+z2iK0U7xZao AQs8h5bD0SetJrjzoPzYDKX5lI5YWmmEAnxVpBUw5pdwvtrXgQZi/m88a9BEyL3UOZaU e/cxgrV2R7h4P+4AE6iqU8j6L3UWjk5ZISraKhRFfrkOcCTbjAi5iYP6W0l+W37KkMP3 rwyV7tkV3Yhen5TPnc5aaiNknL81Pxh9eZFLbomMdr/twdRQSCpcViA4ZCt6qg0zpbzd 4eLqslPxBQOJQcaUjA9LlkkLJmAknIyq1Eiqv3uaITqb+/gSLCc2hURBce60uOh4nGee MNwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.83.2 with SMTP id b2mr24260722eez.28.1381444932372; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.205.7 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.205.7 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52570D32.9020107@dcrocker.net>
References: <508943C8-BE40-4128-9B70-6CB568FC82D3@piuha.net> <52570D32.9020107@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:42:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP__njrPwQOGCaxjFmZhSQF2dgQHTxok45m+Jis=8xa_Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160bc92788d6a04e86ab6b4"
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:42:14 -0000

True, it was mostly a reaction to the IETF's tendency to over-proceduralize
everything, and an inclination to voting. The main issue I have been
concerned with since then, and something this draft helps with, is
redefinition of "rough consensus" to manipulate WG outcomes.  WGs need to
get beyond the primitive basic concept of rough consensus, to get more
nuance in the principles of how they are run. I like this draft as
contributing to that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email