[TLS] Re: For those who have recently joined us - a brief digression on consensus.

[Ashish Shah <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Mike! The issue at hand made me join. But I feel welcome thanks to your detailed email! I really appreciate your email and the community's efforts!

-- 
  Ashish Shah

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026, at 11:59 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi -  Note that the only hat I'm wearing here is of a long time IETF 
> participant.
>
> If you've recently joined this list, perhaps solely to "vote" on 
> publication of a document, I wanted to give each of you a few pointers 
> for your edification.
>
> 1 - Getting started in the IETF - 
> https://www.ietf.org/participate/get-started/
>
> 2 - On Consensus and Humming in the IETF - 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
>
> First - the IETF does not "vote" all claims or statements to the contrary.
>
>     Working groups make decisions by rough consensus as judged by their
>     chairs. [2] above, while neither a standard or a BCP is IMO a
>     reasonable explanation of the rough consensus process.  With respect
>     to the current discussion, I recommend reading both section 6 and
>     section 7 of the document.
>
>     The IETF (collective intelligence) has long experience with
>     variations on the themes of dog piling, greek chorus's, and sock
>     puppets.  We tend to be able to differentiate between an
>     individual's considered opinion and an unconsidered solicited
>     "vote".  We also have tools (e.g. when did you actually sign up for
>     the mailing list) that provide some more objective hints in this
>     category.
>
>     The leadership bodies (IESG, IAB) DO vote on the matters before
>     them. But they tend to be rather resistant to any comments but well
>     stated technical arguments.
>
> Second, I strongly recommend reading [1] and appropriate links from it.
>
>     The IETF is NOT IEEE, not ISO, not OASIS, not W3C, not Global
>     Platform.  Our procedures and the acceptable behavior around such
>     procedures have evolved over time, and were, at the beginning at
>     least, incorporated as push-back to having ISO internet standards
>     declared as replacing TCP/IP standards by fiat. (Ask an old timer
>     about Kobe, the original IAB, and the IETF reformation).
>
>     Trying to engage with the IETF without understanding the limits of
>     your approach in the IETF context is unlikely to provide you the
>     results you may be looking for.  Or substitute both "IETF" with any
>     other organization and I believe the statement remains mostly true.
>
> Lastly - if you've considered all of the above, and you still have a 
> strongly held view - informed by your own research into the problem - 
> express yourself!  In last calls, a short 1-2 sentence explanation of 
> why you're supporting or opposed (or don't support but also don't 
> oppose) the action should be all that's needed even for a newcomer.
>
> Oh yes - welcome! TLS is important to the IETF and *YOUR* contribution 
> is part of our rough consensus.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]