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

THere is one nuance that is worth noting.  It is not for the case of a 
controversial document.

Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether 
the working group even cares about the document.  I have had several 
cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there was almost no 
response on the mailing list.  In the absence of decent indication, I as 
chair feel compleed to say "no, I do not see enough support to adopt / 
advance / ... this document".
In that situation, even +1s can help.  (And yes, I do watch for the case 
of all the +1s coming from the same company as the author, and then 
start judging whether they are folks who participate, along the lines 
Warren outlined.)

Yours,
Joel

On 2/27/2020 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net 
> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>> It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of 
>> retrieving judgement from real group of folks who understand given 
>> proposal. 
> 
> We do.   It’s called “substantive comments.”
> 
>> "+1" is just only one demonstration of it. Humming is another. Raising 
>> hands one more. We say there is no voting but while there is no formal 
>> ballot box nor even e-ballot version of it all of the above ways to 
>> gather "consensus" are examples of voting. 
> 
> Actually, the purpose of humming is not to make a decision, but to 
> figure out whether there is general consensus.   If you ask for a hum 
> and you get a 50-50 response, there probably isn’t consensus, and you 
> might just say “we don’t have consensus” and go on to figuring out how. 
>    If the “no” hum has no loud participants, you might say “looks like 
> we’re good to go, we’ll confirm on the list.”   If there’s someone 
> humming loudly no when everybody else is in favor, and you don’t know 
> why they’re humming that way, that’s a good time to ask them if they are 
> willing to explain.
> 
> But bear in mind that humming does not take place on the mailing list, 
> and that consensus is called on the mailing list, not in the room.
> 
> On the mailing list, people pretty much have to raise objections 
> verbally.  No amount of +1s should be considered meaningful at all.   
> The work is chartered; the wg is supposed to do it.   If there are no 
> objections, and people feel the document is ready, then it should move 
> forward, whether there are +1s or not.   If objections are raised, and 
> they are substantive (that is, not opinion or conjecture), then they 
> have to be addressed.   They can be addressed by saying “we considered 
> that, and the working group as a whole agrees that the problem exists, 
> but it doesn’t need to be addressed because this document is only 
> applicable in a situation where the objection raised doesn’t matter.” 
>   Or it can add text to address the objection, as Brian I think has 
> suggested.   Or it can do additional work to address the problem, as 
> Brian has also suggested.
> 
> But the WG can’t simply ignore the objection.  That is not what “rough 
> consensus” means.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 