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

[Justin Schnurbusch <[e-mail]>]

Hey Mike!

Thanks for your summarizing mail. 

Being relatively new to the list (not due to call for action or moved by anything but curiosity and intrinsic motivation), your mail ist a good guide for me.

I already read the links you provided, but rethinking about the basics really helps integrating here.

Kind regards
Justin

Am 3. Juli 2026 20:59:06 MESZ schrieb Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>:
>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
>