Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 12/15/14 16:24, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 12/15/14, 3:22 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree 100%, but I don't think we need to get consensus on what this
>>> effort might look like 10 years in the future. Let's leave tomorrow's
>>> battles for tomorrow, or we'll never make progress.
>>
>> Yes, that's why I'm now saying to leave out all future-oriented text.
> 
> I take the point, but there is one key future-looking component of the 
> current accord. Leaving it undocumented basically violates the agreement 
> that many people have signed up for...

   This bothers me enough, even after sleeping on it, to comment:

   We are watching a model of "back room deals" such as the US Congress
uses. I strongly believe we should reject this model.

   (That doesn't mean we need to reject the consensus called by a WGC.)

   The US Congress typically includes the text of every "important"
lobbyist in the final bill; and expects the congress-critters to vote
for it pretty much sight-unseen. The "leadership" tells the individual
members what to vote for.

   Here, not only do we have Adam Roach defending the back-room deal, we
have the WGCs failing to post an "official" version of the text we are
consenting to.

   I cry "TILT"! Let's have the WGC calling consensus publish the
text we're being asked to consent to.

   And I strongly recommend all of us read Pete Resnick's RFC 7282 "On
Consensus and Humming in the IETF", especally Section 3.

   I have heard a lot of points raised relating to this consensus call.
I have not heard much discussion about how to accomodate those concerns.
Instead we hear "Take it or leave it: this is the only deal which can
get enough votes!"

   Granted, Pete's RFC is strictly Informational: it cannot override
RFC 2418, which says:
]
] Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other
] means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note
] that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus"
] and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if
] rough consensus has been reached.

   Thus this is not a "process appeal" -- the WGCs are entitled to
say "A strong majority agrees with the consensus of the Hawaii session"
and say that is consensus. But I might appeal if they don't tell us what
text we're agreeing to until _after_ declaring consensus.

   And I really do recommend we all try to follow Pete Resnick's advice
on consensus rather than turn this into an exercise in voting. The word
"consensus" _does_ have a meaning quite different from "2/3 vote".

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>