Re: DT members say "no"

[Bob Stewart <[e-mail]>]

>It does, however, mean that, in addition to the process being biased
>toward those who have worked long and hard and ..., it is also biased
>toward those who attend meetings.  In addition, it means that some
>(perhaps "many" or "most") controversies between design teams and other
>WG members (or between sets of design teams) have to wait for WG
>meetings to resolve, while may imply unreasonable delay.
>
>I, at least, have been quite unsuccessful at measuring considered WG
>reactions but putting my ear to the screen and listening for humming
>noises.

I agree, it's much harder to assess consensus on the mailing list, but
consensus from a meeting is unstable due to lack of representation.  Several
times I've told the SNMPv2 working group that I prefer consensus from the
mailing list, as it is easier for everyone to take part there.  I discourage
the group from postponing discussion for meetings.  Meetings introduce delay.
They do help stability by creating a core of people who've sat together in a
room and come to consensus, but meeting decisions are not ultimately as stable
because someone who wasn't there may be a legitimate, effective consensus
changer.

Our mailing lists are our key tool for truly open, community effort.

Since it's hard to hear hums through the screen, I try for screams instead.  I
periodically try to end a discussion thread by proposing a clear, strong
statement of consensus, designed to generate screams from anyone with a strong
objection.  If I get no screams, I assume a hum.  Doing it this way requires
the chair to monitor the mailing list very closely, which can take a lot of
time, and to take the risk of making strong statements.  As long as people
take the right attitude about this, the chair doesn't need to be right, just
clear, and people can easily and openly apply correction.

	Bob