Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:14 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

[SNIP]

>
> It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it.

Actually, when I see a message whose content is just "+1" (or
something similar like "I support this"), and the sender hasn't been
deeply involved in the conversation, I start thinking it is vote
stuffing. If this happens repeatedly I become increasingly convinced
of this.
"We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code." - we don't vote. Having a thousand people
who have not made good technical points / provided substantive text /
review / contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way suddenly
say "I support this" is not just meaningless, it is actively harmful -
who are they? what do they know? what does their opinion matter? why
did someone feel it necessary to recruit them?
This is true for a bunch of *known* people from the same company /
group / organization / similar all suddenly arriving and supporting or
objecting to a position without good (and distinct!) reasons.

Over time people build up credibility -  if Brian Carpenter (or Randy
Bush or Russ Housley or John Scudder or ...) simply adds a "I support
foo" (or "+1") message to a thread it *does* carry weight; their
statement isn't made in a vacuum - I consider if they have
demonstrated previous knowledge *in the topic*, if they have made
useful contributions, etc. before deciding if their comment *means*
anything, and what bias it carries.

I can spend all day supporting <insert some topic here>, but unless I
have *demonstrated* knowledge, skillset and a track record, my support
isn't useful..

W

>    Brian
>
> > Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
> >
> > Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
> >
> > -éric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
> >
> > ...%<...%<....
> >
> >     It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
> >     -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
> >     - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
> >     category...
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf