Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Back to the decision-making thing

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:58:49 -0500

I think that one thing that came out of the discussion yesterday and
perhaps is clearer on the mailing list today is that "rough consensus"
isn't working here because it can't work when the participants are
taking polarized positions.  Another thing that struck me, though, is
that several people said that people who are unhappy with the process
are those who've been on the losing end of something-or-other and
they need to perhaps be a little more gracious about it.  While I
think that's generally true, or at least is true in terms of the
general direction we need to be going in the future, it's an attitude
which is pretty much completely antithetical to consensus process.
Consensus tries to ensure that there are no losers per se and that the worst
possible outcome is that somebody says "I don't agree with that but
I can live with it and won't block the decision."  It seems possible
to me that some of the problems we're seeing are the result of creating
losers and pushing up general frustration levels higher than they need
to be ("If this is supposed to be a consensus process, why aren't you
listening to me?").

Melinda

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:47:23 -0800

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 02:58:49PM -0500, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
> taking polarized positions.  

I believe it was Sam who suggested that the way to avoid polarization
is to discuss these things in a room with all the people who don't
usually get involved -- who are at the meeting to do engineering.
They would "fill in the middle".

> Another thing that struck me, though, is

We've been around this one a few times, eh?  Is it possible in the
current situation?

Thanks ... Scott

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:13:48 -0500

> We've been around this one a few times, eh?  Is it possible in the

I don't know, but I do know that the extent to which people are
being expected to suck it up when they're unhappy with an outcome
is the extent to which we've already moved away from consensus
decision-making towards voting.  I think that's almost certainly
necessary, but it seems to me to be a somewhat unfortunate
artifact of this tacit shift towards voting is that instead of
using clear criteria for determining an outcome (for example,
simple majority, some other threshold) we're using I-know-it-
when-I-see-it criteria.

Melinda

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:57:19 +0100

At 20:58 10/11/2005, Melinda Shore wrote:
>While I think that's generally true, or at least is true in terms of the

Agreed. The problem may be that we are not only dealing with 
frustration. To understand it is simple. As Dr. Lessig says, the 
Internet constitution is in the code. The importance of the Internet 
in the world's life means that a part of the constitution of the 
world is decided by the IETF (the WSIS debate is on how to take this 
into practical considerations).

However if the IETF has engineering capacities, it has no 
constitutional competence, responsability and legitimacy, while RFCs, 
BCPs and IANA registries are of major societal, commercial, political 
interest. This means that propositions may be based/opposed for 
motives external to the IETF scope, the IETF has no way to properly 
address and the IESG no legitimacy to deal with.

My suggestion is that these interests are to be addressed in full 
respect and inside of the Internet standard process, by ad hoc 
structures the IETF should help the emmergence.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:14:51 -0500

>>>>> "Melinda" == Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> writes:

    Melinda> On 11/10/05 4:47 PM, "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
    Melinda> wrote:
    >> We've been around this one a few times, eh?  Is it possible in
    >> the current situation?

    Melinda> I don't know, but I do know that the extent to which
    Melinda> people are being expected to suck it up when they're
    Melinda> unhappy with an outcome is the extent to which we've
    Melinda> already moved away from consensus decision-making towards
    Melinda> voting.  I think that's almost certainly necessary, but
    Melinda> it seems to me to be a somewhat unfortunate artifact of
    Melinda> this tacit shift towards voting is that instead of using
    Melinda> clear criteria for determining an outcome (for example,
    Melinda> simple majority, some other threshold) we're using
    Melinda> I-know-it- when-I-see-it criteria.

I don't think it is a shift or at least I have not seen a shift in how
good chairs judge consensus within the IETF.

But yes, the difference between rough consensus and consensus is that
some people some of the time will not be able to accept the outcome.