[TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

[Andrei Popov <[e-mail]>]

  *   I started with some change suggestions for you to consider
Understood; the suggestion that consensus should be determined at the meetings has been opposed by others, I don’t need to repeat the arguments.
Even as an employee of a large business, I cannot rely solely on the (increasingly more expensive) meeting attendance to participate in the IETF consensus process.

Also, the general idea of voting to pick the best course of action for complicated technical matters seems questionable. There is no minimum technical qualification requirement or process for the IETF attendees.

I agree that as things stand, there is some level of WG chair discretion in determining consensus; I believe the chairs are doing a good job of this, in general.
And I say this even though I’ve been in the rough quite a few times😊

Cheers,

Andrei

From: Quynh Dang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:16 AM
To: Andrei Popov <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tim Bray <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation



On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 2:08 PM Andrei Popov <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

  *   Did you mean the number of people attending a particular meeting ?
My understanding is that consensus is not determined by meeting participants; it’s always determined on the mailing list. Are you suggesting that a certain minimum percentage of mailing list subscribers have to be in favor?

I have not been talking about how the current consensus process works. I started with some change suggestions for you to consider.  Please read my first email(s) first.

Regards,
Quynh.


Cheers,

Andrei

From: Quynh Dang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:01 AM
To: Andrei Popov <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Tim Bray <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

You don't often get email from [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>


On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:50 PM Andrei Popov <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
In the absence of a roster of participants, how can a percentage of votes be determined?
We don’t have WG membership registrations, AFAIK.

Did you mean the number of people attending a particular meeting ? Requiring them to sign in using the online tools. For the people who don't sign and they attend another meeting, they can send their IETF registration for that day or for the whole week to the chairs and their votes can be cast within a week or so after the IETF ends.

That would be an easy task I think and I don't think we should talk about it now.

Regards,
Quynh.

Cheers,

Andrei

From: Quynh Dang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 10:44 AM
To: Tim Bray <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

You don't often get email from [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>


On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:26 PM Tim Bray <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2025 at 11:37:58 AM, Quynh Dang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Defining a minimum percentage of votes to have  the consensus would take care of the problem and the chairs at the IETF would love that.

No it wouldn’t

Why do you think it wouldn't take care of the problem I described?

Regards,
Quynh.

and no we (speaking as former co-chair of two WGs) wouldn’t.

I’m not sure why we’re relitigating the works-pretty-OK process of consensus calls from the chair and potential appeals.

 -T