Re: [nfsv4] rough consensus

[<[e-mail]>]

Dave Noveck,

As another WG chair, I have some experience and perspective on this.  I think you're splitting hairs, and in particular I don't think that RFC 2418's discussion of WG agreement:

> > Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other
> > means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).

implies that the WG always actively "decides" the method:

> ... and he [WG chair] is required to use the method that the group has decided upon ...

I observe that while agreement with a proposed course of action is part of making a decision, it is not the complete decision-making activity, as there first had to be a proposal ;-).  Typically the WG chair has an initial proposal or preference for the method to use, to which objections can be voiced (i.e., to the extent that a WG "decides" on a method of determining rough consensus, it is often via absence of objection to the method that the WG chair employs).  A WG chair who employs methods with which the bulk of the WG disagrees is liable to wind up having a rather frank discussion with his responsible Area Director, at whose discretion that WG chair serves (see RFC 2418).

Across the IETF, there are a variety of methods used to determine rough consensus - at the end of the day, the important focus is whether the determined rough consensus is accurate, as opposed to the process details of how it was determined.  If there is concern that the determined rough consensus is incorrect, recourse is to the WG chair(s) and then the Area Director, sometimes simultaneously ;-), beyond which there is a formal appeals procedure for both process and technical issues, see RFC 2026.

All in all, I don't see a serious divergence between Dave Harrington's remarks and RFC 2418 - between that RFC and RFC 2026, both WG Chairs and ADs have significant authority, ability and flexibility to get things done, without detailed instructions on the precise processes to be used.  This is checked/balanced by AD oversight of the WG chairs and IESG oversight of the ADs (including formal appeals if things really get out of hand).

Do you have an actual issue, or is this just a discussion of procedure in principle?

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:34 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] rough consensus and the read sparse I-D RE: nfsv4.x
> 
> Your understanding doesn't match RFC 2418, which you cited.
> 
> I get the impression, that you feel that your understanding, and not
> RFC2418, is dispositive.  It isn't clear why, though.
> 
> But since you don't want to debate the issue, there is no point in
> proceeding.
> 
> I guess the members of the working group need to confer privately and
> see how to proceed.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of David Harrington
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: Noveck, David; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] rough consensus and the read sparse I-D RE: nfsv4.x
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It is my understanding that the chairs are authorized to oversee the
> process, including how consensus will be determined. They are overseen
> by me and the rest of the IESG to make sure their approach is
> reasonable. The IETF way is to invest significant authority in the WG
> chair position, because the rough consensus of the IETF is that this
> is the best way to ensure progress on our technical standards, without
> being hamstrung by lots of procedural debates (as many other SDOs can
> be).
> 
> Spencer is not the only chair. Brian is also a chair, and they confer
> with one another. I am quite sure that if Brian objected to how
> Spencer was determining consensus, he would speak up. And I am obviously
> watching the list to see what is happening as well, and I am
> conferring with Lars on a weekly basis about any concerns I have, and
> Lars and I confer with the IESG about any concerns we have. So there
> are people watching to make sure no one person gets too much
> authority, or deliberately or intentionally misuses the authority they
> have been delegated.
> 
> I don't feel like getting into a fully documented legal argument with
> you about the process rules right now. I have never had any desire to
> be a lawyer. If you believe my understanding is wrong, then feel free
> to appeal the chair's decision about how to determine consensus.
> Personally I think that would be a tremendous waste of everybody's
> time, and would greatly delay the progress of the NFS standards, but
> it's your right to appeal if you want.
> 
> If you want to worry about such things, feel free. Here's a problem
> for you mull over ... if the WG were charged with deciding how
> consensus should be decided, and the WG could not achieve consensus on
> how to determine consensus, how would the WG make progress? Please
> mull this over yourself; you don't need to include me in your
> mulling, because I'm not worried about this. And you are free to
> appeal that advice from me if you want.
> 
> If you really LIKE procedural debates, come see me at ietf79. I'll
> recommend some SDOs where you'll fit right in!
> 
> I don't mean to seem flippant, or to seem as if I don't care about
> your concerns. I do. A great deal. Which is why I watch to make sure
> the chairs are doing their jobs correctly. But, based on my
> understanding, they have not in any way misused their authority, and I
> have no cause for worry. I think there are higher priority things -
> things that are important right now - that I should spend my time on
> than this procedural debate.
> 
> David Harrington
> Director, IETF Transport Area
> [e-mail] (preferred for IETF)
> [e-mail]
> [phone] (cell)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:31 PM
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [nfsv4] rough consensus and the read sparse I-D
> > RE: nfsv4.x
> >
> > From RFC2418:
> >
> > > Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or
> > any other
> > > means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).
> >
> > So the method of determination is up to the working group, by
> > rough consensus.
> >
> > > It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been
> > > reached.
> >
> > You see the problem here.  If the working group decides that
> > a show of hands is to be used, and it is up to the Chair to
> > determine if rough consensus has been achieved, we have a
> > potential contradiction.  Either the working group choice is
> > a nullity, or we have a situation in which the working
> > group's choice must be respected and the role of the chair is
> > one of judgment, and he is required to use the method that
> > the group has decided upon, and the data provided by that
> > method.  He is given latitude in where he draws that line but
> > RFC 2418 does give him the following guidance.
> >
> > > Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough
> > > consensus" and 99% is better than rough.
> >
> > Thus the chair is not free to decide that 51% of the working
> > group qualifies as a rough consensus, or simply decide based
> > on his own wishes.
> >
> > I am not saying that that has ever happened, but the
> > assertions that I am hearing about the Chair's authority do
> > not seem to make it clear that he must work within that
> > framework of rules, and respect the working group's decisions.
> >
> > This is not a personal issue.  Spencer has indeed respected
> > the working group's decisions but Spencer may not be the last
> > chair the working group will have and it is best not to rely
> > on personalities when dealing with governance issues.  I
> > recall Boss Tweed saying that he didn't care how the people
> > voted, as long as he got to do the counting.  I am a worrier
> > about such issues.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of David Harrington
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:26 PM
> > To: 'Spencer Shepler'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [nfsv4] rough consensus and the read sparse I-D
> > RE: nfsv4.x
> >
> >
> >
> > > Note that determination of rough consensus is the purview of the
> > > working group (co-)chair.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > From RFC2418:
> >    A number of procedural questions and issues will arise
> > over time, and
> >    it is the function of the Working Group Chair(s) to manage
> > the group
> >    process, keeping in mind that the overall purpose of the
> > group is to
> >    make progress towards reaching rough consensus in realizing the
> >    working group's goals and objectives.
> >
> > > There have been occasions
> > > where I have been asked by the AD for a positive show of
> > support via
> > > the WG alias as a method of ensuring there was support;
> >
> > +1
> >
> > and appeals are possible:
> >    Formal procedures for requesting a review of WG, Chair,
> > Area Director
> >    or IESG actions and conducting appeals are documented in
> > The Internet
> >    Standards Process [1].
> >
> > David Harrington
> > Director, IETF Transport Area
> > [e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
> > [e-mail]
> > [phone] (cell)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfsv4 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4