Subject: RE: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:12:16 -0200

Margaret,

	"Forge a consensus" was either a poorly chosen phrase, or a
freudian slip, given the way that the IETF usually determines that
a consensus has been achieved.

	I think we are arguing here about what is a good change from 
the perspective of those doing the work and what is a good change
from the perspective of those who have to live with the results. A
good case can be made for either perspective.  Also, the roles of
"doing the work" and "living with the results" are not fixed.  For
example, many recent changes are making it much harder for authors
to submit an internet draft and work it through the process while
making it a little easier for IETF processing elements to push the
sludge through the process once an author has done their part.

	It's a constant search for the right balance and the IETF 
leadership needs to be careful not to push too hard for a balance
that costs the IETF "followership" too much.  

	The tough part is figuring out which side of the balance we
are on right now.  The recent spate of people deciding not to stay
in IETF leadership positions could be interpretted in two ways:

	1) The IETF is asking too much of its leadership or
	2) Employers of people in IETF leadership positions are not
	   seeing any benefit in having people in those positions.

The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive - except maybe 
on a case-by-case basis - but it would help to know which way the
dominant trend leans at present.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] 
--> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
--> Margaret Wasserman
--> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:57 PM
--> To: 'Joel M. Halpern'; [email-masked]
--> Subject: RE: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..
--> 
--> 
--> Hi Joel,
--> 
--> Joel Halpern wrote:
--> > I believe that process proposals need to be an exception to this.
--> > As far as I can tell, the community will never reach 
--> rough consensus 
--> > on any of the major process changes.
--> > (It was hard enough to get rough consensus on minor 
--> changes.) As I 
--> > said at the meeting, while such an absence can be used as 
--> an excuse 
--> > for not making any major changes, that would seem to be an 
--> > inappropriate response.
--> 
--> I think that the community can (and does) reach consensus 
--> on major changes when they are really needed.
--> 
--> Last year, we reached community consensus to reorganize the 
--> entire administrative and financial structure of the IETF 
--> and to create a new IETF leadership body.  IMO, this 
--> happened because the community was convinced that change 
--> was necessary, and there was sufficient pressure to fix the
--> problem(s) that we were able to forge a consensus.
--> 
--> In some other cases, we don't have that pressure (yet), so 
--> we have not reached consensus to make other specific major changes. 
--> 
--> Margaret
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Pesci-discuss mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
--> 

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:09:34 -0800

> a consensus has been achieved.

Given the sense of feeling hammered that I often have after having forged a 
particularly difficult consensus, I thought the term was perfect......

"forge" as in what a blacksmith does, not as in what a counterfeiter does.